TMI Blog2011 (4) TMI 1450X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ay of interstate sale. To prove these facts, as per statutory provisions contained in the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (herein after referred to as 'the Act'), the petitioners had to produce necessary evidence including Form 'F' as envisaged under Section 6A of the Act. It is a case of the petitioners that all such declarations and forms and other evidences were produced before the Assessing Officer to establish that dispatch of goods outside the State by way of consignment. The petitioners produced form 'F' received from the different agents in addition to producing invoices, lorry receipts, payments made by commission agents, etc., with respect to such goods. The assessing officer however made inquiries and found that in certain cases booklets of F form were not issued by the concerned Sales Tax Department of those States. With respect to such goods the assessing officer therefore was of the opinion that the transaction cannot be treated as consignment transaction. He, therefore, imposed tax @ 10 % on such goods treating the transaction as interstate sale. The petitioners carried issue in appeal before the first appellate authority. When such appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Tribunal the petitioners have already preferred appeal before the Central Sales Tax Authorities. In view of this, the Division Bench disposed of the petition making following observations. 7. In this view of the matter, at present two different proceedings are already pending, one before this Court by way of a review petition and another by way of an appeal before the Central Sales Tax authorities. The Court, therefore, does not entertain this petition. However, following the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ambica Steels Ltd. (supra), this Court is of the view that it is open for the petitioners to agitate this issue before the pending proceedings and establish its claim in absence of Form F while leading other evidence to the effect that the transaction in question is not an interstate sale, but it is merely a consignment. After the Central appellate authority dismissed the appeal of the petitioners, it appears that the petitioners approached the Apex Court. Such appeal was disposed of by an order dated 11/02/2010 permitting the petitioners to move the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. It was observed that if such a petition is filed wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted the petitioners to agitate the issues in the pending proceedings viz., the issue that even in absence of F form it is open for a dealer to establish that the movement of the goods was by way of consignment; in the pending proceedings. Having heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and having perused documents on record, we find that the entire issue hinges on interpretation of Section 6A as amended by Act 20 of 2002. In its amended form sub-section (1) of Section 6A reads as under: 6A. Burden of proof, etc., in case of transfer of goods claimed otherwise than by way of sale.-- (1) Where any dealer claims that he is not liable to pay tax under this Act, in respect of any goods, on the ground that the movement of such goods from State to another was occasioned by reason of transfer of such goods by him to any other place of his business or to his agent or principal, as the case may be, and not by reason of sale, the burden of proving that the movement of those goods was so occasioned shall be on that dealer and for this purpose he may furnish to the assessing authority, within the prescribed time or within such further time as that authority may, for sufficient cause, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ties, the State Tribunal as well as the Central Appellate Authority have on facts held that such declarations were found to be bogus. In fact no serious attempt was made before us to dislodge these findings of facts. In fact the State Tribunal raised serious doubts about the stand of the petitioners that they were not aware about the dealings of the commission agents and the fact that such agents had supplied non-genuine F form declarations. Be that as it may, facts remain that such declarations were found to be non-genuine. The Central appellate authority has also gone into the issue at considerable length. The appellate authority dealt with the contention of the petitioners that even if such declarations were found to be non-genuine, petitioners could through means of other independent evidence establish that the movement of goods was by way of consignment and not by way of interstate sale. The appellate authority in face of provisions contained in Section 6A and more particularly sub-section (1) thereof, repelled such a contention and in our opinion rightly so. The insistence on filing F form declaration is not difficult to appreciate. If the dealer transports his goods ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
