- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
State Of Punjab & Another v. Bajaj Electricals Ltd.
Factual and Procedural Background
The respondent is a joint stock company with its principal place of business in Bombay and a branch office in New Delhi. For the financial years 1960-61 and 1961-62, the Assessing Authority at Karnal, acting under the Punjab Professions, Trades, Callings and Employments Taxation Act, 1956 (Act 7 of 1956), assessed the company to profession tax and issued notices of demand.
The respondent challenged the assessments before the Punjab High Court, which quashed both the assessment orders and the demand notices, holding that the company did not “carry on trade” within the State of Punjab and was therefore outside the tax net of the Act. The State of Punjab appealed that decision to the Supreme Court of India.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether, on the facts found, the respondent can be said to “carry on trade … within the State of Punjab” under Section 3 of Act 7 of 1956.
- If not, whether the Assessing Authority could validly levy profession tax on the respondent for the assessment years 1960-61 and 1961-62.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant (State of Punjab)
- Contended that the respondent “may reasonably be regarded as selling goods within” Punjab because the goods were supplied F.O.R. destination in Punjab.
- Emphasised that inspection of goods and realisation of the sale price (through presentation of endorsed railway/public transport receipts) occurred inside Punjab, thereby constituting trade activity within the State.
Respondent (Company)
- Asserted that it had no branch office, shop, agent or representative in Punjab.
- Submitted that all contracts were concluded at New Delhi; sending goods F.O.R. destination and collecting price in Punjab were merely ancillary steps and did not amount to carrying on trade in the State.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Grainger and Son v. Gough (Surveyor of Taxes) | No single or decisive test exists for determining whether a trade is exercised at a particular place. | Referenced to illustrate that multiple factors, not one “crucial” test, govern where a trade is carried on. |
| F.L. Smith & Co. v. F. Greenwood (Surveyor of Taxes) | Same principle concerning localisation of trade for tax purposes. | Cited in support of a holistic, fact-based approach. |
| Firestone Tyre Co. Ltd. v. Lewellin | Affirmed the absence of a single test for “trade exercised” under UK Income-tax Acts. | Used to reinforce the Court’s view that ancillary activities alone are insufficient to locate trade in a State. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court began by noting that liability under Section 3 arises only if a person “carries on trade” within Punjab. Because the Act does not define “trade,” the Court adopted its ordinary meaning—repeated mercantile activity with a profit motive—and emphasised that whether such trade is carried on at a given place is a mixed question of law and fact that must be evaluated on all relevant circumstances.
Key considerations included:
- The respondent possessed no shop, office, branch, agent or representative in Punjab.
- Orders were received and accepted at New Delhi; the goods were merely despatched to Punjab pursuant to those contracts.
- Although inspection of goods and collection of price occurred in Punjab, these were characterised as ancillary or incidental to the main trading operations conducted outside Punjab.
- The precedents cited demonstrate that no single act—such as despatch F.O.R. destination or presentation of railway receipts—is decisive in localising trade for taxation.
On the totality of facts, the Court held that the respondent’s activities in Punjab were ancillary and did not amount to “carrying on trade” within the State as contemplated by Section 3.
Holding and Implications
Appeal Dismissed. The Supreme Court upheld the Punjab High Court’s decision quashing the assessments and demand notices. No order as to costs was made because the respondent did not appear.
Implications: The decision confirms that merely supplying goods F.O.R. destination and undertaking ancillary acts like inspection or collection of payment within a State does not, without more, constitute “carrying on trade” there for the purposes of profession-tax liability. The ruling affects only the parties and articulates no new bright-line test; it reiterates the necessity of a fact-specific inquiry in similar cases.
SHAH, J.— The respondent — a joint stock company — has its principal place of business in Bombay, and a branch office in New Delhi. The Assessing Authority, Karnal, exercising power under the Punjab Professions, Trades, Callings and Employments Taxation Act 7 of 1956, assessed the respondent to, profession tax for the years 1960-61 and 1961-62 and issued a notice of demand for the amount so assessed. The High Court of Punjab quashed the notices of demand and the assessment orders holding that the respondent did not carry on trade within the State of Punjab and was not liable to be assessed to tax under the Act. The State of Punjab has appealed to this Court against the order of the High Court.
2. Section 3 of Act 7 of 1956 provides
“Every person who carries on trade, either by himself or by an agent or representative, or who follows a profession or calling or who is in employment, either wholly or in part, within the State of Punjab, shall be liable to pay for each financial year or a part thereof a tax in respect of such profession, trade, calling or employment.
Provided * * *”
The respondent, it is common ground, has no branch office or any other place of business in the State of Punjab. It has also not appointed any agent or representative to carry on business on its behalf within the State. The respondent supplies goods to the Government of Punjab and certain “semi-government bodies” in the State in execution of orders received at its branch office at Delhi. The goods are despatched from Delhi by rail or by public motor transport. Pursuant to the terms and conditions of the “Rate Contract” between the respondent and the Controller of Stores for the State of Punjab, the respondent consigns the goods sold by it to the appropriate government department F.O.R destination. Inspection of the goods is made within the State of Punjab. The price for the goods sold is collected by presenting bills or railway receipts through banks to the consignees.
2. The Assessing Authority held that the respondent “may reasonably be regarded as selling goods within” the State of Punjab because it was supplying goods F.O.R destination. The High Court held that the respondent could not in law be regarded as carrying on trade at the place at which the goods were supplied, merely because the railway or other receipts were taken out in the name of the respondent and presented to the purchasers duly endorsed in their favour to secure realization of the price of the goods.
3. Liability to pay tax under Act 7 of 1956 arises if a person carries on trade by himself, or through his agent, or follows a profession or is in employment within the State, and not otherwise. The expression “trade” is not defined in the Act. “Trade” in its primary meaning is the exchanging of goods for goods or goods for money; in its secondary meaning it is repeated activity in the nature of business carried on with a profit motive, the activity being manual or mercantile, as distinguished from the liberal arts or learned professions or agriculture. The question whether trade is carried on by a person at a given place must be determined on a consideration of all the circumstances. No test or set of tests which is or are decisive for all cases can be evolved for determining whether a person carries on trade at a particular place. The question, though one of mixed law and fact, must in each case be determined on a consideration of the nature of the trade, the various steps taken for carrying on the trade and other relevant facts.
4. In the present case, the respondent has no shop or office within the State of Punjab. The respondent supplies goods within the State pursuant to orders received and accepted at New Delhi, and also receives price for the goods within the State. But these are ancillary activities and do not in our judgment amount to carrying on trade within the State of Punjab. We need not refer in detail to cases such as Grainger and Son v. Gough (Surveyor of Taxes); F.L Smith & Co. v. F. Greenwood (Surveyor of Taxes) and Firestone Tyre Co. Ltd. v. Lewellin which interpret the expression “trade exercised within the United Kingdom” in the English Income Tax Acts, for they merely lay down that for the purpose of the Income Tax Acts, there is no single, decisive or “crucial” test to determine whether the taxpayer exercises trade at a given place.
5. The appeal fails and is dismissed. The respondent has not appeared at the hearing. There will, therefore, be no order as to costs.
Alert