Case: Indian Oil Corporation Limited and Another Vs. Union of India and Others

The first petitioner Indian Oil Corporation Limited, IOC for short, are a government company incorporated underthe Companies Act, 1956engaged inter alia in the manufacture and marketing of petroleum products. The second petitioner is the Managing Director and a shareholder of IOC. Union of India has been impleaded as the first respondent in the petition. The 2nd respondent is the Assistant Superintendent of Commercial Taxes, Central Circle, Bihar. The 3rd and 4th respondents are respectively the State of Bihar an d the State of U.P. The 5th respondent Indian Explosives Limited are a company having their registered office at Calcutta; they have a factory at Panki, Kanpur in Uttar Pradesh manufacturing urea fertilizers. IOC have a refinery at Barauni in the State of Bihar and also a depot at Panki, Kanpur. In 1966 IOC completed pipeline from their refinery at Barauni in Bihar to Kanpur in U.P. through Patna in Bihar and Mughalsarai and Allahabad both in U.P. At their Barauni refinery IOC manufacture naphtha which is the principal raw material for production of fertilizersOn February 9, 1970 an agreement was entered into by and between IOC and the 5th respondent in terms of which IOC were to sell and the 5th respondent were to buy the entire quantity of naphtha required for the 5th respondents fertilizer factory at Kanpur. Below is a summary of the different clauses of the agreement that are relevant for the present purpose; the numbers given to the different paragraphs in this summary follow the numbering of the corresponding clauses of the original. The agreement shall be deemed to have come into force from September 10, 1969 [when the supply of naphtha commenced] and shall remain in force till December 31, 1980. It shall continue to be in force thereafter unless terminated by either party giving to the other not less than one years prior notice of the intention to terminate the agreement2. The naphtha to be supplied shall be of the specification set out in Schedule I of the agreement3. (i) The quantity of naphtha that the 5th respondent agree to buy and IOC agree to sell shall be 2, 50, 000 tonnes per annum which is the maximum rate per annum(iii) The naphtha shall be supplied against the buyers indents in writing addressed to the seller at the sellers Panki/Kanpur installation(iv) It is agreed that the buyers requirement of naphtha for the first four years shall be 95, 000, 1, 70, 000, 2, 00, 000 and 2, 25, 000 tonnes respectively(viii) In case the buyer fails to take delivery during any year the quantities of naphtha as stipulated above for reasons other than Force Majeure at their Kanpur plant, the seller shall be entitled to sell the quantity which the buyer has failed to lift. Similarly if the seller fails to deliver the stipulated quantities of naphtha during any year for reasons other than Force Majeure at their Barauni refinery and/or the transportation system from Barauni to their Panki installation, the buyer shall be entitled to purchase the quantity not delivered in that year from other sources4. The supply of naphtha to the buyer shall be made from the sellers refinery at Barauni5. The price of naphtha shall be exclusive of transfer charges, excise duty and all other taxes levies which shall be recovered by the seller from the buyer at actual rates prevailing and levied by concerned agencies from time to time7. (i) Naphtha shall be supplied through a pipeline at the fence of the buyers fertilizer factory and the pipeline between the buyers and the sellers fences shall be constructed by the buyer at their expense(ii) The cost of transferring naphtha by the pipeline from the point of its manufacture to the fence of the buyers fertilizer factory shall be borne by the buyer8. The seller shall provide at their cost storage facilities at the sellers Panki/Kanpur installation of a capacity equivalent to not less than 30 days requirement of the buyer10. (iii) Three samples of naphtha for testing will be taken from the sellers tank at their Panki/Kanpur installation prior to transfer in the presence of buyers representatives at such frequency as may be mutually agreedAccording to the 5th respondent, since the commencement of supply of naphtha under the aforesaid agreement IOC went on charging from them sales tax at the rate prescribed by the U.P. Sales Tax Act on the plea that the sales were chargeable under the said Act. On or about March 16, 1974 the assessing authority under the U.P. Sales Tax Act assessed IOC to sales tax under the said Act on their total turnover for the assessment year 1969-70 including the sales of naphtha to the 5th respondent. The 5th respondent filed a writ petition in the Allahabad High Court challenging the assessment made on the basis that the sales were local and asserting that they were inter-state sales. Before the writ petition was disposed of the U.P. assessing authority assessed IOC for the assessment year 1970-71 treating the sale of naphtha to the 5th respondent as local sale. On August 27, 1975 the Allahabad High Court allowed the said writ petition quashing the impugned order of assessment to the extent it sought to levy tax under the U.P. Sales Tax Act on the sales of naphtha to the 5th respondent. The High Court held that the sales under the agreement dated February 9, 1970 were inter-state sales. IOC preferred an appeal against the order of assessment in respect of the assessment year1970-71andalthough the appeal was on grounds not relevant for the present purpose, it is necessary to refer to it because at a later stage IOC had the scope of the appeal enlarged, induced by the 5th respondent according to IOC, by including a ground that the sales of naphtha under the agreement wereinterstatesales.On June 29, 1978 the 2nd respondent levied sales tax under the Central Sales Tax Act on the sales of naphtha by IOC to the 5th respondent for the assessment year1970-71treating them as inter-statesales.Under section 9 of the Central Sales Tax Act the tax levied under that Act is collected in the State from which the movement of the goods commenced; in this case the movement commenced from Barauni in Bihar. IOC preferred an appeal against this order to the appellate authority. For the assessment year 1971- 72 the assessing authority under the U.P. Sales Tax Act treated the sales of naphtha to the 5th respondent as inter-state sales presumably in view of the aforesaid judgment of the Allahabad High Court. This assessment order was challenged by the Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. in revision before the appropriate authority. For the same assessment year the Bihar authority assessed the sales on the basis they were inter-statesales.For the next assessment year 1972-73 the U.P. authority again treated the sales as inter-state salesandagain the order was challenged in revision by the Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. The Bihar authority also treated the sales for that year as inter-statesales.Thereafter for t he assessment years 1973-74and1974-75 somewhat surprisingly the U.P. assessing authority went back on the view taken in the immediately preceding two yearsandagain treated the sales as local salesandthe 5th respondent preferred appeal s from these two orders of assessment. In this confused situation IOC filed the instant writ petition in this Court on May, 1, 1979. Meanwhile the appellate authority under the U.P. Sales Tax Act dealing with the appeal preferred by IOC against the order of assessment relating to the year1970-71hadd the case to the assessing authorityandthe assessing authority by his order dated December 20, 1979 held that the sales were locale 5th respondent ha d started several other proceedings to avoid the sale of naphtha to them under the agreement dated February 9, 1970 being assessed to sales tax under the U. P. Act. On August 29, 1977 they filed a suit in the Calcutta High Court against IOC seeking to restrain IOC from collecting sales tax from them under the U.P. Sales Tax Act. The 5th respondent also filed two writ petitions in the Allahabad High Court, Nos. 102and103 of 1978. The first petition challenges the assessment order relating to the year1970-71made by the U.P. authority. The second petition is directed against the revisional proceedings started by the Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. in respect of the assessment years 1971-72and1972-73. All these proceedings are still pending

Court's reasoning:
In our opinion the terms of the agreement dated February 9, 1970 summarized above make it quite clear that the sales of naphtha to the 5th respondent were inter-statesales.Under clause 4 of the agreement seller is "to make the supply of naphtha to the buyer from its refinery at Barauni". The source of supply is thus the sellers refinery at Barauni in Biharandthe destination is the buyers factory at Kanpur. This one clause alone is sufficient to prove that the sales in question wereThe indents are therefore not outside the agreement but are relatable to the buyers requirements under the agreement. It is obvious that the sales under the agreement are not possible withoutinterstatemovement of naphtha. Clause 3 read with clause 8 also proves that really thare are no two movements but only one movement from Barauni to Kanpur pursuant to the contract of saleandthe agreement regarding storage facilities provided in clause 8 is only for operational convenience, it is only a mechanism devised to facilitate the transfer of naphtha through the sellers pipeline to their depot at Kanpurandfrom there to the Buyers factory at Kanpur through the pipeline constructed at the buyers cost. It is relevant in this connection to note that under clause 7(ii) the cost of transferring naphtha from Barauni to the buyers fence is to be borne by the buyerEach case turns on its own factsandthe question is whether applying the settled principle which we have mentioned above to the facts of the present case the sales can be said to be inter-statesales.An attempt to show that some of the factors present in the instant case are present or absent in some case or other in which this Court held the sale to be a local sale or inter-state sale hardly serves any useful purpose. On the facts of the present case the sales are clearly inter-state salesandthe State of U.P.hadtherefore no jurisdiction to assess the petitioners to sales tax under the State Act. As the movement of naphtha commences from Barauni in Bihar, the sales tax payable on the sales of naphtha under the agreement dated February 9, 1970 can be assessedandcollected only by the authorities in the State of Bihar on behalf of the Government of India in view of section 9 of the Central Sales Taxn behalf of the State of Bihar a point was taken that the present petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India complaining of violation of the fundamental right guaranteed by Article 31 of the Constitution was not maintainable after the repeal of Article 31 by theh Amendment of the Constitution with effect from June 20, 1979.The petition however complains also of infringement of Article 19andtherefore does not cease to be maintainable.Counsel for the 5th respondent sought to raise a question regarding the justification of treating freight as part of the sale price, but that is not a matter that arises for consideration on the present writ petition filed by IOCIn the result the alternative prayer made in the writ petition succeeds, the assessment orders for the assessment years, 1973-74and1974-75 passed by the Sales Tax Officer, U.P.andthe revision proceedings initiated by the Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. for the assessment years 1971-72and1972-73 are quashedandrespondent No. 4, the State of Uttar Pradesh, is directed to refund to IOC the sales tax collected from them on the sales of naphtha to the 5th respondent under the agreement dated February 9, 1970, further, not to levy sales tax on the sales under the said agreement underthe U.P. Sales Tax ActThe petition however complains also of infringement of Article 19andtherefore does not cease to be maintainable.