Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2014 (5) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (5) TMI 721 - MADRAS HIGH COURTValidity of the order of the Tribunal – Claim for exemption - Constructive delivery – Held that:- Judgment in STATE OF TAMIL NADU v. N. RAMU BROTHERS [1992 (9) TMI 324 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] followed - The Appellate Assistant Commissioner rightly pointed out that there was no obligation on the part of the carrier to transport the goods further to any place beyond Coimbatore - Subsequent arrangement that the assessee had with the transporter to carry the goods to another place for a different person, however, did not make the movement a continuation of the original interstate sale - When once the movement of goods terminated at Coimbatore, on the doctrine of constructive delivery, the authorities rightly rejected the assessee's claim for exemption u/s 6(2) - Even though there were separate sales at the point of time in the eye of law, there were two deliveries which synchronized at the same point of time - Further movement done as per the fresh invoices prepared and trip sheets and way bill clearly pointed out to fresh movement from Coimbatore to other State and to the local purchaser from the assessee - The condition as stipulated in Explanation I to Section 3(b), thus not satisfied - A reading of the order of the Tribunal shows that without adverting to any of these facts, Tribunal merely accepted the statement from the assessee to grant the relief. Going by the materials indicating the break in the journey of the interstate movement of goods, it is held that the findings of the Tribunal is without any material and there are no materials to disturb the findings given by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner - Thus, having regard to the perversity in the order of the Tribunal there is no hesitation in allowing this revision, thereby, setting aside the order of the Tribunal – Decided in favour of Revenue. Levy of Penalty – Held that:- Having regard to the facts referred to by the first appellate authority, which upheld the assessment on actual stock variation and the estimation made on equal addition, there is no ground to sustain the same - Consequently, the order of Tribunal stands confirmed on penalty - Revision is allowed – Decided against Revenue.
|