1968 (2) TMI 96 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Determination of the place of sale for the purposes of Central Sales Tax.
2. Appropriation of goods to the contract.
3. Jurisdiction of the Sales Tax Officer, New Delhi, to levy and collect sales tax.
4. Availability and effect of the alternative remedy.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Determination of the place of sale for the purposes of Central Sales Tax:
The petitioner-company argued that the sales should be deemed to have taken place inside Uttar Pradesh (U.P.) because the goods were within U.P. at the time of appropriation under the contract of sales. The respondents, however, claimed that the appropriate State entitled to levy and collect tax was Delhi, not U.P. The Sales Tax Officer, New Delhi, held that the transactions were inter-State sales as contemplated by clause (b) of section 3 of the Central Sales Tax Act, effected by the transfer of documents of title to the goods during their movement from U.P. to Delhi. The Court noted that the appropriate State would be the State in which the sale is effected, as per Explanation 2 to section 2(a). The place of sale depends upon the location of the goods at the time of their appropriation to the contract of sale under section 4(2)(b).

2. Appropriation of goods to the contract:
The petitioner contended that the goods were "unconditionally appropriated" to the contract in U.P. The respondents denied this, asserting that the goods were appropriated to the contracts only when railway receipts representing title to them were endorsed by the petitioner's office in Delhi in favor of the purchasers. The Court clarified that section 4(2)(b) does not require an unconditional appropriation as required by section 23 of the Sale of Goods Act. The term "appropriation" in section 4(2)(b) connotes the setting apart of goods as specific goods to be delivered under the contract of sale, irrespective of the passing of property. The Sales Tax Officer, New Delhi, failed to give a clear finding on whether the goods were appropriated to the contract in U.P.

3. Jurisdiction of the Sales Tax Officer, New Delhi, to levy and collect sales tax:
The petitioner argued that having paid the tax in U.P., Delhi could not levy and collect it again. The Court noted that the Sales Tax Officer, New Delhi, had no jurisdiction to assess the petitioner to tax without giving a finding as to the place where the sale was effected. The absence of a clear finding on the place of appropriation of goods invalidated the jurisdiction to levy or collect the sales tax.

4. Availability and effect of the alternative remedy:
The respondents contended that the petition should be dismissed due to the petitioner's failure to avail themselves of the alternative remedies provided in the Act. The Court acknowledged that normally, it would be reluctant to interfere in writ jurisdiction when alternative remedies are available. However, considering that the petitioner had already paid the tax in U.P. and that it would be unjust to burden the petitioner with a second levy without a firm finding, the Court decided not to dismiss the petition on the ground of the existence of an alternative remedy.

Conclusion:
The petitions were allowed, and the orders of the Sales Tax Officer, New Delhi, were quashed. The Court left it open to the Sales Tax Officer, New Delhi, to make a fresh order if permissible by law. The parties were ordered to bear their own costs.