TMI Blog2010 (12) TMI 1092X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e are of the opinion that no good ground is made out to interfere with the orders of the Tribunal. Revision dismissed. - 10135 of 2010 - - - Dated:- 24-12-2010 - MANJULA CHELLUR AND NAGARATHNA B.V., JJ. ORDER:- The order of the court was made by MRS. MANJULA CHELLUR J. The revision petitioner is a public limited company formed by Komatsu Asia Pacific Pre (KAP) and Larsen Toubro Limited (L T Ltd.,) each holding 50 per cent of the petitioner s equity. The registered office is at Mumbai and the manufacturing plant is located at Byatarayanapura, Bellary Road, Bangalore. The petitioner is engaged in the business of manufacture and supply of hydraulic excavators, hydraulic equipment and parts thereof. The petitioner was assessed to sales tax under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (for short, the KST Act ) and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (for short, the CST Act ). The case of the petitioner falls under entry M. 1(I)(a)/II and liable to tax at eight per cent under the KST Act during the relevant period for the assessment in question. Subsequently, by notification bearing No. FD.117.CSL.2001(1), dated July 26, 2001, the State Government reduced the rate of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y from the legitimate customers and credited to the account of finance companies who had agreed to finance the equipment. According to the Revenue, the following facts would conclude that petitioner has in fact occasioned inter-State sale and the documents were fabricated which were make believe documents: (i) That the petitioner received advances from the persons who bought or took on hire the excavators from the finance companies and that the petitioner accounted for such advances while raising invoices on the finance companies; (ii) That the purchase orders placed by the finance companies on the petitioner were through L T Limited. (iii) That the purchasing finance companies did not take delivery of the equipment as the movement from the petitioner s factory continued up to the premises of the eventual buyer/lessee. For this, the CTO relied on the GCV note issued by the transporter showing the petitioner as the consignor and the finance company s office at Bangalore as consignee and another GC note showing the finance company s local branch as consignor and the finance company which actually placed the order which is outside the State as the consignee. The CT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appellant by concealing the 41 cases as inter-State sales does not gain anything, as it would be collecting the taxes from the purchasers. In many other cases, the first appellate authority opined that L T Finance has paid taxes to the authorities and other Departments. According to the learned counsel, even in these 41 matters, the finance company must have paid taxes and other charges to different Departments. It is further contended that the receipt of advance pertains to only six instances as against 41 from the finance companies and according to them, the quantum of advance is very negligible amount and as the advance was received, it was the duty of the petitioner to accommodate without having any direct relation with the buyers. According to the petitioner, the finance companies took delivery of the equipment at the petitioners factory through authorised representatives or agents or transporters. The subsequent events up to the stage of reaching the eventual premises would be immaterial and the G.C. note has nothing to do with the petitioner as it refers to different transactions between the finance company and the eventual buyer. Therefore, the order of the appellate a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rity granted exemption to the dealer in terms of its turnover of stocks from one branch to another. The appellate authority dismissed the appeal challenging the imposition of inter-State tax at 10 per cent on the ground that though the copies of some of the invoices showed local deliveries they were in fact effected to parties authorised by the buyers, who transported the goods to their branches outside the State and those sales were inter-State sales. The authority also found that the head office of the respondent at Chennai received the payments for the goods sold by it at Hyderabad. The respondent preferred appeal to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, which held that the sales made by it were local sales and the mere fact that the buyers from the respondents dispatched the goods purchased by them to persons outside the State would not make the sales made by the respondent inter-State sales. This came to be questioned by a revision before the High Court. It was held that according to the assessee the sales made by it were local sales and though the buyer had dispatched the goods to a place outside the State the onus was on the Department to establish that the sales made by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
