2008 (6) TMI 571 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Sales Tax Tribunal was legally justified to hold that the transaction in question cannot be treated as sale and consequently is exempt from tax despite the fact that evidences on record reveal otherwise? Held that - The very fact that 95 per cent of the sale consideration was received by the dealer-opposite party which according to it was returned subsequently and the fact that the goods were dispatched from the State of U.P. to the State of Gujarat is sufficient to show that the goods were sold by the dealer. In absence of any contrary material it would show that the sale as a matter of fact had taken place. It may be noticed that a categorical finding was recorded by the first appellate authority which has not been met by the Tribunal that the dealeropposite party has not produced any evidence or the account books to substantiate its plea of rejection of goods by the purchasing dealer. The Tribunal was duty bound before reversing the order of the first appellate authority to have met the reasonings given by the first appellate authority. Without adverting to the reasonings furnished by the first appellate authority the Tribunal has erred in law in allowing the appeal by making observation in one sentence that the goods were not in deliverable state. The order of the Tribunal therefore cannot be sustained. Appeal dismissed.

Issues involved:
Challenge to the legality and validity of the order passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal regarding exemption from Central sales tax on certain transactions for the assessment year 1982-83 (Central).

Detailed Analysis:

1. Question of Law Raised:
The Commissioner challenged the Sales Tax Tribunal's order granting exemption from Central sales tax on certain transactions. The main issue was whether the transaction in question could be treated as a sale and exempt from tax despite evidence suggesting otherwise.

2. Facts and Dispute:
The dealer's claim for exemption from Central sales tax on goods returned after sale was rejected by the assessing officer for not meeting the statutory requirements. The first appellate authority upheld this decision, but the Tribunal partially accepted the claim for a specific turnover. The Tribunal's decision was influenced by an income tax assessment without independent findings.

3. Legal Justification for Exemption:
The Department argued that no exemption could be granted as 95% of the sale price was received by the dealer and the goods were dispatched to another state. Lack of evidence supporting the claim that goods were sent on approval basis was highlighted.

4. Lack of Substantiating Evidence:
The Tribunal's decision was deemed unsustainable as it lacked evidence supporting the claim that goods were sent on approval basis and later disapproved by the purchasing dealer. The Tribunal relied on irrelevant observations from an income tax assessment.

5. Failure to Consider Relevant Material:
The Tribunal failed to consider crucial evidence such as correspondence between the parties, details of defects in goods, and movement records of returned items. The lack of reasoning for overturning the first appellate authority's decision was also noted.

6. Decision and Conclusion:
The High Court held that the Tribunal's order was indefensible as it did not consider the relevant material on record. The order was set aside, and it was concluded that there was no sufficient evidence to support the claim that the transaction in question could not be treated as a sale.

In conclusion, the High Court's judgment highlighted the importance of substantiating claims with concrete evidence, the need for relevant material to support legal justifications, and the requirement for tribunals to provide detailed reasoning for their decisions.

← Previous Next →