Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2013 (12) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (12) TMI 1229 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxClassification of sale - Inter state sale or Intra state sale and purchase - Purchase of rubber effected from State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. - Sales disclosed as inter-State sales - Whether the transaction in question was an inter-State sale or a local sale, taxable at 5% at the hands of the assessee herein as a last purchaser - Held that:- Being part of the very same establishment, the mere payment by the Units for any administrative convenience, per se, would determine the character of the transaction. On the other hand, a reading of the allotment order in the context of the application made by the assessee shows that it was a consolidated order in respect of all its Units. Contrary to the assertion of the assessee that the said order contemplated the movement from one State to another, one can only say that the assessee had made use of the particular delivery for the purpose of satisfying the requirement of its Units outside the State. The fact that STC issued a bill in the name of MRF Limited, Kottayam, or for that matter, a certificate had been issued by STC that MRF Limited, Kottayam and Goa had purchased natural rubber from STC, however, would not, in any manner, make the transaction an inter-State sales; that the authorities rightly came to the conclusion that the movement had nothing to do with the transaction of sale. The application of the delivered raw rubber to any particular Unit outside the State is a matter of choice and the discretion of the assessee and the seller, at no point of time, was involved in this. As is evident from the original allocation order, the price charged by STC for Chennai and Kottayam, Kerala are totally different. However, on the revised order, the price charged for RSS-3, now allotted to Kottayam, however, remained the same as for Chennai. As rightly contended by the learned Special Government Pleader, we can only construe the allocation order dated 16.08.1991 as carrying out the request of the assessee for delivery at Kottayam, which cannot be treated as the same as the assessee having originally entered it as RMA-5 - Kottayam. Thus the delivery instruction given cannot be construed as forming part of the sale transaction as indicated in the allocation order and as already noted in the preceding paragraph, on the request made, instead of making an endorsement in the letter itself, STC made necessary endorsement in the allocation order - Thus, the mere endorsement in the allocation order dated 16.08.1991 making the allocation of RSS-3 from Madras to Kottayam at the price at which it was originally quoted for Madras, hence, will not improve the case of the assessee for treating the transaction as an inter-State sale - Following decision of Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. B.L.Kailash Chand Arhti [1992 (8) TMI 241 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] - Decided against assessee.
|