9911796707
TMI Blog1975 (3) TMI 109X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs. 43,771.00 Calcutta ... Rs. 18,95,807.09 Nagpur ... Rs. 2,63,014.97 In the return for this assessment year under the Central Sales Tax Act, the appellant returned only a taxable turnover of Rs. 1,33,681.20. But in respect of the above set-out sales, it claimed exemption on the ground that they were depot sales and not inter-State sales. This contention was accepted by the joint Commercial Tax Officer, Madurai, except in regard to a turnover of Rs. 35,774.98. Even this turnover of Rs. 35,774.98 was held as not interState sales by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in appeal preferred by the appellant. It appears, sometime later a team of officers were sent to Bombay, Nagpur, Calcutta and Burhanpur to investigate into the nature of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion. It is not in dispute that the other transactions were also similar to this transaction. The particular transaction took place in the following manner: On 5th December, 1964, the appellant wrote to their depot keepers M/s. Kiron Corporation of Bombay, informing them that the appellant will make available for sale 100 cases of R & NF 50 Californian cotton yarn at Rs. 54.50 per 5 kg. ex-mill basis and that the appellant will be able to despatch the same in the month of December in lots of 20 cases every four days. On receipt of this letter M/s. Kiron Corporation contacted the intending buyers and obtained orders from them. One such purchaser was M/s. KeshavIal Talakchand and Co., Bombay, who placed an order on 10th December, 1964, for pur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the way-bill the purchaser cleared the goods from the transporting lorries themselves. This is the procedure which was followed in respect of these transactions which are in question. On these facts, we have no doubt that the goods were despatched in pursuance of the order placed by the Bombay purchaser with the appellant through its depot keeper at Bombay and that the consignment was referable to and identifiable with the relevant contract itself. The fact that the outof-State purchaser placed the order with the appellant's depot keeper at Bombay and then it was forwarded to the appellant or the fact that the payment was first made by demand draft drawn on the depot keeper, which was discounted and, later on, the amount was recouped b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce of an intermediary such as the seller's own representative or branch office, who antecedently initiated the contract may not make the matter ambulatory. Such an interception by a known person on behalf of the seller in the delivery State and such person's activities prior to or after the implementation of the contract may not tilt the issue either." Similar view was taken in another decision of this court: vide Deputy Commercial Tax Officer v. Arasan Match Industries[1969] 23 S.T.C. 152., in which the fact that the out-of-State depot keepers prepared the bills which included the transport charges and collected the money from the buyers was held did not in any way change the character. On similar facts, the Supreme Court also in Iyanahal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld be diverted by the consignor or his depot keeper at his will and that therefore the sale could not be held to be an inter-State sale. In this connection he also relied on the decision in Tata Engineering & Locomotive Co. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes[1970] 26 S.T.C. 354 (S.C.). and Kelvinator of India Ltd. v. State of Haryana[1973] 32 S.T.C. 629 (S.C.). It is true that the fact that the goods could be diverted by the consignor before it reaches the out-of-State purchaser is a relevant factor in considering the question whether the transaction is inter-State sale or not, but that fact itself could not be said to be conclusive. In very many cases, in order to safeguard the payment of the price and also in order to avoi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he exact quantity of goods were sent with the intention to deliver the goods to a particular out-of-State purchaser. In these circumstances, we are unable to agree with the learned counsel that there was no appropriation in this State. In fact, we doubt very much whether there was any depot at all for the appellant at Bombay. The evidence does not disclose the existence of any depots where large quantities were stored and as and when orders were received from the local purchasers such quantities were removed from those depots and delivered to them.
For the foregoing reasons, we agree with the order of the Board of Revenue and dismiss this appeal with costs. Counsel's fee Rs. 250.
Appeal dismissed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
