9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog1989 (8) TMI 305X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... quarters. It claimed that goods worth Rs. 99,641.65 had been transferred to its head office at Delhi and as such they were not exigible to tax. The Assessing Authority classified these goods, which had been avowedly transferred to the Delhi office, in two categories. In the first category were put those sales which were made to buyers outside the Union Territory of Delhi. In all these cases, the goods received from the factory at Bahadurgarh were despatched to the purchasers in various States on the very day they were received at Delhi. In one or two cases they were despatched a day or two later. The Assessing Authority concluded that the movement of the goods from Bahadurgarh in Haryana had been occasioned by prior orders. The Assessing Au ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red from its factory at Bahadurgarh (Haryana) to its head office at Delhi and sold to various customers. There was no previous order. It was further pleaded that though before the Assessing Authority the orders of the sales tax authorities of the Union Territory, Delhi, levying tax at the rate of 3 per cent on inter-State sales were produced, yet he had levied tax on those sales at the rate of 10 per cent. It was contended that onus of proving that the sales in question were exigible to tax lay heavily on the department and they had miserably failed to discharge that onus. These submissions did not find favour with the learned Tribunal. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal recorded a finding of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the order of the Assessing Authority to be part of the order, on appeal, by the learned Tribunal. The learned counsel for the applicant-dealer, has not challenged the correctness of the details of the transactions either before the authorities or before us. The particulars of the goods alleged to have been sold by the applicant-dealer to the parties outside the Union Territory of Delhi are as follows: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Date of sale Nature and quanAmount Purchaser's name Remarks tity of goods sold. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 21-1-1971 Colour 20 kgs. 715.00 M/s. Uttam & Co., Goods were Allahabad. transferred from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs. It is difficult to believe that without any order in writing a prudent businessman will despatch the goods to unknown buyers in far-flung places. The explanation of the applicant-dealer that some friend or agent of these buyers may have placed the order at Delhi has rightly been rejected by the authorities. The particulars of the sales to buyers at Delhi also deserve reproduction: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of transfer Challan number Goods Disposal of Delhi Office -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12-12-1970 1/24.400 kgs. Saccharin Sold on 13-12-1970 to M/s. Pappi Chemicals, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi24.400 kgs. 14-12-197 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Chemicals on December 13, 1970. On December 14, 1970, 28.400 kgs. of saccharin was received and sold to M/s. Mehta Brothers (10 kgs.) and Pappi Chemicals (18.400 kgs.). 5 kgs. of colour was received on December 15, 1970, and sold on December 16, 1970, to M/s. Mehta Brothers. In the same manner have taken place the other transactions. Every manufacturer has a certain capacity for manufacturing particular items. Despatch of goods from the factory to head office at Delhi does not conform to any set pattern. On December 15, 1970, only 5 kgs. of colour is despatched, whereas on December 21, 1970, 37 kgs. of colour is despatched. On December 22, 1970, the head office, Delhi, receives 35 kgs. of colour, and on that very day another consignment of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of India v. K.G. Khosla and Co. Ltd. [1979] 43 STC 457 (SC). However, these decisions do not help the learned counsel, because in both cases there were contracts of sale which fell for interpretation and on the construction of those documents were based on the two decisions. However, in the present case, there is no document which falls for construction. In the result, we answer the first question in the affirmative and in favour of the department. Regarding the second question, it is apparent from the record that no 'C' forms were produced before the sales tax authorities in Haryana. Only orders of the sales tax authorities of the Union Territory of Delhi were produced. In the absence of 'C' forms, the Haryana sales tax authorities we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
