Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1997 (8) TMI 485

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e of Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer [1985] 60 STC 301. 2.. It is not in dispute that the assessee who is a manufacturer of sun arc electrodes has branch offices at Bangalore and Bombay. The assessee had appointed Murray and Company as its dealer under a dealership agreement dated April 26, 1978 wherein it was, inter alia, stated that the supply of material will be effected from the Bangalore office. The stocks transferred to the Bangalore office were transferred under the cover of form 27, Central excise gate pass, pro forma, packing note and lorry way bill in the names of the respective branches which in turn furnished form F declarations to the appellant s head office. The transferred stock had been shown .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... sion of the apex Court in the case of Balabhagas Hulaschand v. State of Orissa [1976] 37 STC 207. Reference was made to the illustration given thereon and it was observed that the case was distinguishable as the goods in the case before the court were in the case of Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd. [1985] 60 STC 301 (SC), goods manufactured at Hyderabad according to the specifications stipulated by the buyer should be the very goods delivered to the buyer outside the State. The goods were those manufactured for the specifications given by the buyer. The court therefore held that though the indent had been placed on the branch office, and the goods were despatched by the head office located in the another State to its branch office, and the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s were appropriated to the contract. 7.. It is no doubt true that the place where the sale is completed, is not a material factor for deciding as to whether there was an inter-State sale. The other facts in this case, apart from the place of sale, are not such as to lead to a conclusive inference that the movement of the goods was inextricably linked to that the sale was ultimately effected to the buyer from the branch office at Bangalore. One of the sales effected from the branch office was, to a customer at Mangalore. Had it been the intention to effect inter-State sales directly to the customer, it would have been easier for the assessee to despatch the goods directly to the customer at Mangalore rather than send it to its Bangalore br .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates