top of page

THE SALE OF GOODS ACT (Landmark Judgement)

Updated: May 4


THE SALE OF GOODS ACT (Landmark Judgement)
THE SALE OF GOODS ACT (Landmark Judgement)

M/s. K.P. Mozika v Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. & Ors. (2024)

The Supreme Court has held that the hiring of motor vehicles/cranes from a contractor is a service and would not attract Sales Tax or Value Added Tax (VAT) assuming the transaction to be sale of goods.


The Court clarified that transfer of right to use the goods not only includes possession but also control over goods by the user. If the control over the goods remains with the contractor during the hire period, then it cannot be termed as sale of goods and only service tax can be levied.

 
 

State of M.P. v. Orient Paper Mills Ltd., (1977) 2 SCC 77

The Supreme Court held that standing timber is considered movable property if the trees are agreed to be severed under the contract.


CIT v. Hind Construction Ltd., (1972) 4 SCC 460

The Supreme Court ruled that for a transaction to be considered a sale, there must be a distinct seller and purchaser. Self-sale, such as revaluing goods in one's own books, does not constitute a sale.


H. Anraj v. Govt, of Tamil Nadu, (1986) 1 SCC 414

The Supreme Court determined that lottery tickets are considered "goods" under the law.


M.S. Madhusoodhanan v. Kerala Kaumudi (P) Ltd. (2004) 9 SCC 204

The Supreme Court affirmed that goods can be transferred immediately with the agreement to fix the price later, which is not invalid under Section 29 of the Contract Act.

The Privy Council held that a buyer's reliance on a seller's skill and judgement can imply a warranty even if not expressed.


Agricultural Market Committee v. Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd., (1997) 5 SCC 516

The Supreme Court held that the passing of title in goods is not dependent on the time of payment but on compliance with Section 20.

 
 

Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund v. Kartick Das, (1994) 5 SCC 225

Until shares are allotted, they cannot be considered goods because they do not yet exist.



Badri Prasad v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1970 SC 706

This case clarified that fixed items attached to land may be sold as goods if agreed to be severed from the land.


State of Madras v. Gannon Dunkerley & Co. (Madras) Ltd., 1959 SCR 379

The Supreme Court defined "sale" in the legal sense as arising out of a contract that results in the passing of ownership.


Consolidated Coffee Ltd. v. Coffee Board, Bangalore, AIR 1980 SC 1468

In auctions, the sale is completed when the auctioneer announces its completion by the fall of the hammer or in another customary manner.


Arihant Udyog v. State of Rajasthan, (2017) 8 SCC 220

The Supreme Court clarified that the transfer of title in goods occurs only upon the sale of goods, and the timing of such transfer depends on the intention of the parties.

 
 



Comentários


bottom of page