TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + SC VAT and Sales Tax - 1985 (9) TMI SC This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

1985 (9) TMI 313 - SC - VAT and Sales Tax


  1. 2015 (3) TMI 786 - SC
  2. 2011 (3) TMI 1427 - SC
  3. 2007 (11) TMI 396 - SC
  4. 2005 (7) TMI 353 - SC
  5. 2004 (1) TMI 365 - SC
  6. 2002 (4) TMI 694 - SC
  7. 1997 (2) TMI 451 - SC
  8. 2024 (9) TMI 304 - HC
  9. 2024 (4) TMI 813 - HC
  10. 2024 (8) TMI 957 - HC
  11. 2024 (1) TMI 177 - HC
  12. 2023 (3) TMI 1004 - HC
  13. 2022 (11) TMI 1274 - HC
  14. 2021 (12) TMI 355 - HC
  15. 2021 (3) TMI 968 - HC
  16. 2021 (3) TMI 795 - HC
  17. 2019 (12) TMI 105 - HC
  18. 2019 (9) TMI 1504 - HC
  19. 2018 (12) TMI 230 - HC
  20. 2018 (3) TMI 681 - HC
  21. 2018 (1) TMI 1251 - HC
  22. 2017 (11) TMI 466 - HC
  23. 2017 (9) TMI 1421 - HC
  24. 2017 (1) TMI 746 - HC
  25. 2016 (12) TMI 513 - HC
  26. 2017 (1) TMI 201 - HC
  27. 2016 (7) TMI 307 - HC
  28. 2016 (10) TMI 134 - HC
  29. 2016 (1) TMI 1116 - HC
  30. 2016 (1) TMI 998 - HC
  31. 2016 (6) TMI 654 - HC
  32. 2015 (12) TMI 470 - HC
  33. 2015 (8) TMI 103 - HC
  34. 2015 (5) TMI 462 - HC
  35. 2015 (1) TMI 545 - HC
  36. 2014 (7) TMI 743 - HC
  37. 2015 (9) TMI 1393 - HC
  38. 2014 (1) TMI 1671 - HC
  39. 2014 (2) TMI 150 - HC
  40. 2013 (12) TMI 1130 - HC
  41. 2013 (7) TMI 301 - HC
  42. 2013 (1) TMI 701 - HC
  43. 2014 (5) TMI 761 - HC
  44. 2013 (5) TMI 32 - HC
  45. 2014 (5) TMI 911 - HC
  46. 2011 (9) TMI 906 - HC
  47. 2011 (8) TMI 1017 - HC
  48. 2011 (4) TMI 1010 - HC
  49. 2011 (4) TMI 1235 - HC
  50. 2010 (10) TMI 965 - HC
  51. 2008 (10) TMI 605 - HC
  52. 2008 (9) TMI 896 - HC
  53. 2005 (2) TMI 810 - HC
  54. 2005 (2) TMI 786 - HC
  55. 2004 (11) TMI 518 - HC
  56. 2002 (9) TMI 802 - HC
  57. 2002 (2) TMI 1298 - HC
  58. 1997 (9) TMI 596 - HC
  59. 1997 (8) TMI 485 - HC
  60. 1996 (12) TMI 365 - HC
  61. 1993 (1) TMI 263 - HC
  62. 1992 (9) TMI 330 - HC
  63. 1990 (9) TMI 336 - HC
  64. 2024 (10) TMI 1124 - AT
  65. 2023 (6) TMI 1153 - AT
  66. 2015 (9) TMI 517 - AT
  67. 2008 (2) TMI 842 - AT
  68. 1998 (12) TMI 597 - AT
  69. 2010 (3) TMI 1019 - AAAR
  70. 2010 (3) TMI 1017 - AAAR
  71. 2009 (6) TMI 929 - AAAR
  72. 2007 (10) TMI 560 - AAAR
Issues Involved:
1. Liability of Central Sales Tax on non-standard goods transferred from the registered office to branch offices.
2. Reopening of past assessments for including stock transfers in the assessable turnover.
3. Opportunity to collect C forms for concessional tax rates.
4. Deletion of transactions from State Sales Tax assessments.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Liability of Central Sales Tax on non-standard goods transferred from the registered office to branch offices:
The primary issue revolves around whether the transfer of non-standard goods from the registered office in Hyderabad to branch offices in other states constitutes inter-State sales liable to Central Sales Tax. The Commercial Tax Officer assessed the turnover of such goods as inter-State sales, arguing that the movement of goods from Hyderabad to branches was an incident of the contract with customers. The petitioners contended that these were mere stock transfers, not sales. The Court concluded that the movement of goods was occasioned by the orders placed by buyers, making it an inter-State sale under section 3(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act. The Court emphasized that the registered and branch offices are not separate juridical entities, and the goods' movement from Hyderabad to branches was integral to fulfilling the sales contracts.

2. Reopening of past assessments for including stock transfers in the assessable turnover:
The petitioners challenged the Commercial Tax Officer's notices to reopen assessments for the years 1977-78 and 1978-79 to include the disputed transactions in the assessable turnover. The Court did not provide a detailed analysis on this issue but implied that the reopening was justified based on the finding that these transactions were indeed inter-State sales.

3. Opportunity to collect C forms for concessional tax rates:
The petitioners requested time to collect C forms from customers to avail of the concessional tax rate under section 8(1) read with section 8(4) of the Central Sales Tax Act. The Court acknowledged the petitioners' request, noting the long-standing doubt regarding the nature of these transactions. It directed the Commercial Tax Officer to provide a reasonable opportunity for the company to collect and submit C forms before making an assessment for the disputed transactions.

4. Deletion of transactions from State Sales Tax assessments:
The petitioners sought relief from the inclusion of these transactions in the assessments under the State Sales Tax Acts. The Court granted liberty to the petitioner-company to apply to the assessing authority for this relief. It directed the assessing authority to entertain such applications made within two months, notwithstanding any limitation period, and to dispose of the claims in accordance with the law.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the Commercial Tax Officer's decision that the disputed transactions were inter-State sales liable to Central Sales Tax. It directed the provision of time for collecting C forms for concessional rates and allowed the petitioners to seek deletion of these transactions from State Sales Tax assessments. The writ petition was dismissed with these directions, and no order as to costs was made.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates