TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 761X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... laced an order with the branch office when the branch office had communicated the terms and specifications of the order to registered office and the branch office itself was concerned with dispatching, billing and receiving of the sale price, the order placed by the customer was an order placed with the head office of the company, and for the purpose of fulfilling that order, the manufactured goods commenced their journey from the registered office in the State of Andhra Pradesh to the branch outside the State for delivery of the goods to the customer therein - When the assessee had placed orders on behalf of its branches/ factories, situated outside the State, there could be no doubt as regards the character of the sale as nothing but an interstate sale - Similarly regarding the purchase of tyres from State Trading Corporation on allotment of rubber, yet, the decision rested on the facts found - Therefore, the decision is distinguishable on facts – Relying upon CCE v. ALNOORI TOBACCO PRODUCTS [2004 (7) TMI 91 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] - Observations in judgments must be read in the context of the facts of the case – Accordingly, Revision dismissed, thereby confirming the order of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ding Corporation, Chennai before despatch of goods to the factories outside the State is inter-state sale? 2. It is evident from the order of the Tribunal that the first four years viz., 1985-86 to 1988-89 are the revision of assessments and remaining two years viz.,, 1989-90 and 1990-91 related to original assessment. It is seen from the facts that there was an inspection conducted in the business premises of the assessee on 17.8.89 and 4.11.89 resulting in recovery of materials which indicated that the assessee had taken delivery of rubber from the godown of the State Trading Corporation at Virugambakkam, Chrompet etc. at Madras and despatched the same to their factories outside the State i.e. Hindupur in Andhra Pradesh and to Pondicherry. Based on the above said facts, the assessment in respect of the assessment years 1985-86 to 1988-89 were revised under Section 16 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act to treat the transactions as last purchase in the State assessable under Section 74(a) of the First Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. The said reasoning was applied in respect of assessment year 1989-90 and 1990-91. 3. The assessee herein is having their Adm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of these documents, the assessee contended that the movement was to be treated as an interstate sale, not amenable to Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax jurisdiction. Aggrieved by the order of assessment, confirming the proposal to treat the transaction as local sale, assessable under the last purchase point, the assessee went on appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, who held that the sale was local sales and assessments had been made correctly. The first Appellate Authority viewed that the assessee had taken delivery from the godown of State Trading Corporation and as owners of the goods, they transported the same to their factories at Andhra Pradesh and Pondicherry. The first Appellate Authority further viewed that the delivery orders were raised in the name of the assessee. All payments for rubber, in advance, had been made by the assessee only. The contract did not contemplate any movement of goods from Tamil Nadu to other states / Union territories. Thus, the assessments were confirmed. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee went on further appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, who found that the goods were intended only for Hindupur and Pondicherry and that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e and hence, the decision would apply in all force to the facts of the case on hand. 6. We do not find that the decision dated 13.8.2012 rendered in T.C.(A). No. 2115 of 2006, 1717 and 2212 of 2008 in the case of MRF LIMITED v. ASST. COMMR., CHENNAI would have a bearing on the facts of this case and it is distinguishable on the findings arrived at in this case. It is a matter of record that the earlier decision also related to the case of assessee manufacturing tyres and tubes placing an order with State Trading Corporation for import of rubber. The assessee therein had factories in Tamil Nadu as well as outside the State. The consumption pattern not being fixed, this Court held that it was difficult to accept the case of the assessee that there was an interstate sale and not of local sale, taxable at last purchase point. Quite apart from that, it was also found by this Court that the document evidencing the delivery pointed out to the assessee taking delivery and there after wards appropriating it to the respective factories situated inside the State and outside the State. In the background of the above facts, this Court held that the assessment made under the Tamil Nadu General ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder with the branch office when the branch office had communicated the terms and specifications of the order to registered office and the branch office itself was concerned with despatching, billing and receiving of the sale price, the order placed by the customer was an order placed with the head office of the company, and for the purpose of fulfilling that order, the manufactured goods commenced their journey from the registered office in the State of Andhra Pradesh to the branch outside the State for delivery of the goods to the customer therein. The Supreme Court further observed that both the registered office and the branch office were offices of the same company, they did not possess separate juridical personalities. The movement of the goods from the registered office at Hyderabad was occasioned by the order placed by the customer and was an incident of the contract, and therefore, from the very beginning from Hyderabad all the way until delivery to the customer it was an inter state movement. The sale transactions were interstate sales under Section 3(a) of the Act. 9. In 90 STC 1 CO-OPERATIVE SUGARS (CHITTUR) LTD v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU, the Supreme Court pointed out th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
