TMI Blog2006 (12) TMI 459X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filed successive appeals, assessments were confirmed by the appellate authorities, including the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. These tax revision cases are filed in this court against the final orders of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal upholding the levy. The assessments involved are for the years 1989-90 to 1991-92 and from 1994-95 to 1997-98. The revisions for the first three years are reaching this court a second round. In the first round of revisions against orders of Tribunal upholding assessments, this court remanded the case back to the Tribunal once again for considering the issues raised after verifying the facts pertaining to delivery of goods and based on later decisions. We have heard counsel appearing for the petitioner, S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... demand tax or penalty invoking section 3-A of the TNGST Act, 1959 in respect of same transactions which have been assessed to tax by various other respondent-States other than the State of Tamil Nadu and in respect of which the petitioners have also paid the appropriate lease taxes. In view of the above grounds admitting liability for sales tax on these transactions in States like Kerala raised by the petitioner before the Supreme Court while challenging assessments made in Tamil Nadu, we feel there is no bona fides in the petitioner's case before the sales tax authorities in Kerala that they are not liable to pay sales tax on lease rentals or hire charges in Kerala. On the other hand, after taking the above stand before the Supreme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ional amendment, we are bound to decide questions of law raised in the tax revision cases. However, since the Supreme Court has comprehensively dealt with the scope of levy of tax on leasing transactions in the decision referred above what remains is only to apply the decision on the factual situation. So far as challenge against levy of tax for hire charges, the issue is covered against the petitioner by the decision of this court referred above, which is stated to be confirmed by the Supreme Court. Before proceeding to consider the issues raised we have to first refer to the nature of transactions carried on by the petitioner. In order to avoid confusion on factual situation, we extract below the nature of transaction admitted by the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the petitioner with a hotel company at Ernakulam on September 28, 1993, the purchase order was placed on the supplier of goods only on October 16, 1993 and goods were sold by the suppliers on November 17, 1993. In other words, the purchase of goods outside and delivery to lessees is made in Kerala after two months from the date of execution of lease agreement. The pattern of business is admittedly the same and therefore lease agreements executed by the petitioner were in respect of leasing of equipments which were not in existence at that time, or at least not purchased or possessed by the petitioner, and therefore lease agreements were for leasing of future goods to be acquired by the lessors. Now we refer to the law declared by the Su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ire-purchase transactions are inter-State in nature because in terms of the request by the petitioner suppliers have delivered the goods to public carriers for ultimate delivery to lessees or hirers. We are unable to uphold this contention of the petitioner, because petitioner itself has no case that public carriers are arranged by lessees or hirers to take delivery of the goods from manufacturers/suppliers arranged by the petitioner. In fact after entering into lease agreements, the petitioner has admittedly undertaken the responsibility to purchase and deliver the goods to the lessees or hirers even though the goods so manufactured are identified by the lessees or hirers. As held by this court in the decision in Madras Credit Investment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reements are first entered into by the petitioner with the customers and thereafter only goods are purchased and delivered to the customers for use by them under lease agreement or hire-purchase agreements, as the case may be. Since we have already found that there are two transactions in the deal, namely, execution of lease or hire-purchase agreements, and the subsequent purchases and delivery, we do not think the nature of transaction, that is lease or hirepurchase is affected, when goods are sourced from a State other than in the State in which it is given for lease or hire. In the circumstances, we are unable to uphold the contention of the petitioner that transactions are inter-State lease or inter-State hire-purchase and hence not lia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
