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

2008 (3) TMI 629

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... out giving proper opportunity to the petitioner in addressing the arguments relating to the said issue. Incidentally, the learned senior counsel made certain submissions relating to the factual matrix of the matter and relied on the observations made by the apex court in National Aluminium Co. Ltd. v. State of A.P. [2008] 14 VST 351; [2008] VIL 04 SC. (1)Oral. On the contrary, Sri K. Raji Reddy, learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents would submit that in view of section 21(4) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (for brevity, "the CST Act"), it cannot be said that any new issue, as such, had been decided. Even otherwise, it is just an interpretation of the provision and hence, it cannot be said to be a case where the Tribunal, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... alue of Rs. 14,91,959. The "C" forms were filed for Rs. 14,91,959 and E1 forms for Rs. 4,78,309. On the ground that there is variation between value of E1 and "C" forms, the assessing authority exempted the turnover to the extent of the value covered by E1 form and assessed the difference of Rs. 10,13,650 to tax at four per cent on the ground that the turnover is not covered by E1 forms. It is also stated by the petitioner that the petitioner had preferred an appeal to the Appellate Deputy Commissioner who has dismissed the same agreeing with the view of the assessing authority that the turnover of Rs. 10,13,650 is not covered by E1 forms. A further appeal was filed by the petitioner to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal contending, inter al .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t the Tribunal observed that it is only when the first sale satisfies either of the two conditions, subsequent sale effected by transfer of documents of title to the goods would be exempt. Applying the said reasoning to the facts of the petitioner's case, the Tribunal found that the first sale effected by Purnima Industries, Baroda as well as Man Structurals Limited, Jaipur, was occasioned by reason of the order placed by the ultimate customer, GVK Industries Limited on the petitioner pursuant to which the petitioner set about to procure the goods required by the customer and brought the same to Andhra Pradesh. The Tribunal held that the "first sale" has not been effected by transfer of documents of title concerned during their movement .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Liability to tax on inter-State sales.-(1) to (1A) . . . (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) or subsection (1A), where a sale of any goods in the course of inter-State trade or commerce has either occasioned the movement of such goods from one State to another or has been effected by a transfer of documents of title to such goods during their movement from one State to another, any subsequent sale during such movement effected by a transfer of documents of title to such goods,- (a) to the Government, or (b) to a registered dealer other than the Government, if the goods are of the description referred to in sub-section (3) of section 8, shall be exempt from tax under this Act: Provided that no such subsequent sale s .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... under the CST Act." No doubt, the Tribunal further proceeded to consider, which are the sales in the present case, in detail, and recorded certain reasons and ultimately dismissed the appeal with certain directions. This court is not inclined to express any opinion touching the merits and demerits of the contentions, which had been floated by the respective counsel on record. The apex court in National Aluminium Company's case [2008] 14 VST 351; [2008] VIL 4 SC observed as hereunder (page 354 of VST): "It is the stand of the appellant in these appeals that the Tribunal could not have recorded a finding that there was an intra-State sale within the State of Orissa. That was not the subject-matter of dispute before the Tribunal. Stri .....

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