TMI Blog1991 (7) TMI 302X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ffice at Ernakulam for facilitating their business by obtaining orders from parties. Whenever the firm receives orders from Kerala for supply of marble, the goods are supplied directly to the parties, who place the orders. The office at Ernakulam is not doing any business in marble. The administrative office at Ernakulam has not been registered as a dealer under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 or under the Central Sales Tax Act. Thrissur Heart Hospital Ltd., second respondent, is constructing a hospital building. Second respondent is to supply marble and some other articles to the contractor, who had taken up the contract for the construction of the building. Therefore second respondent placed orders with the petitioner for the suppl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en sworn to by the first respondent. The contentions taken therein are to the following effect. Second respondent by exhibit R1(b), dated April 23, 1990, requested the petitioner's agent at Cochin to supply certain quantity of marbles at their building site. Petitioner by exhibit R1(a) dated May 15, 1990, quoted the price of marbles on condition that the delivery will be at their site at Thrissur, that the rate is inclusive of all taxes and unloading charges, and that form 27A should be supplied by the second respondent. This offer of the petitioner was accepted by the second respondent, evidenced by exhibit R1(c) dated May 28, 1990. Exhibits R1(a) and R1(b) prove that petitioner is having a branch office at Ernakulam. The vehicles and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under section 3(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act. He is not liable to pay any tax under the Act. The stand taken by the first respondent is that petitioner is having his agent in Cochin and he was transferring the marble tiles from Rajasthan to his agent. The agent, in his turn, was delivering the goods to the second respondent. So, according to him, there was consignment of the goods from the petitioner to his agent at Cochin and the agent was selling the goods to the second respondent. In this view, the learned Government Pleader submitted that the marble tiles supplied by the petitioner is exigible to sales tax under the Act. 5.. Supreme Court in Balabhagas Hulaschand v. State of Orissa [1976] 37 STC 207, considered the circumstances wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Lordships have been satisfied in the instant case. It, therefore follows that the transaction entered into between the petitioner and the second respondent is nothing other than an inter-State sale. 6.. A contention was raised by the Revenue that the petitioner transferred the goods to his agent at Ernakulam and that the agent sold it to the second respondent. This argument is not supported by any evidence other than the ipse dixit of the first respondent. Even conceding for argument's sake that the agent of the petitioner had played a vital role in effecting the sale, that role will not in any way change the character of the sale to one other than inter-State sale. Reference may be made to the following decisions of the Supreme Court: E ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d such person's activities prior to or after the implementation of the contract may not alter the position." This view has been reiterated by their Lordships in [1985] 60 STC 301 (SC) (Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer). It was observed therein: "The manufacture of the goods at the Hyderabad factory and their movement thereafter from Hyderabad to the branch office outside the State was an incident of the contract entered into with the buyer, for it was intended that the same goods should be delivered by the branch office to the buyer. There was no break in the movement of the goods. The branch office merely acted as a conduit through which the goods passed on their way to the buyer. It would have been a differe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... authorises the assessing authority, may at any time by notice in writing require any person from whom money is due or may become due to a dealer to pay to the assessing authority so much of the money as is sufficient to pay the amount due by the dealer in respect of arrears of tax or the whole of the money when it is equal to or less than the arrears of tax, fee or penalty. The notice contemplated by this section as per rule 22 of the Rules should be in form 16. Form 16 is in the following terms: "Take notice that a sum of Rs............(Rupees....................) (in words) only is due to the Government. from an assessee.........." So a notice under section 25(1) of the Act should specifically state the actual amount due from the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
