TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 210X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itioner Through: Mr. R. Jawaharlal, Mr. Siddharth Bawa, Mr. A. K. Bhardwaj, Mr. Manish Hirani and Mr. Shyamal Anand, Advocates. Respondent Through: Mr. Shadan Farasat and Mr. Ahmed Said, Advocates. S. RAVINDRA BHAT (Oral):- CM Nos.7805/2017, 7807/2017, 8005/2017, 8007/2017, 8009/2017, 8011/2017, 8013/2017, 8015/2017, 8017/2017, 8019/2017, 8021/2017, 8023/2017, 8025/2017, 8027/2017, 8029/2017, 8031/2017, 8033/2017, 8035/2017, 8037/2017, 8039/2017, 8041/2017, 8043/2017, 8045/2017, 8047/2017, 8049/2017, 8051/2017, 8053/2017, 8055/2017, 8057/2017, 8059/2017, 8061/2017, 8063/2017, 8065/2017, 8067/2017, 8069/2017, W.P.(C) Nos.1757/2017 other connected matters Page 2 of 10 8071/2017, 8073/2017, 8075/2017, 8077/2017, 8079/2017, 8081/2017, 8083/2017, 8085/2017, 8087/2017, 8089 /2017 8091/2017 (for exemptions) 1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2. The applications are disposed off. W.P.(C) No. 1757/2017 CM No.7804/2017, W.P.(C) No. 1758/2017 CM No.7806/2017 W.P.(C) No. 1803/2017 CM No.8004/2017 W.P.(C) No. 1804/2017 CM No.8006/2017 W.P.(C) No. 1805/2017 CM No.8008/2017 W.P.(C) No. 1806/2017 CM No.8010/2017 W.P.(C) No. 180 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessee/petitioner had entered into specific contracts with each of the parties for the supply of said electrical systems. Upon default assessments made by the DVAT Authorities, the petitioner preferred appeals to the Objection Hearing Authorities (for short OHA ) contending that the nature of the transactions was inter State sale and the movement of goods of import pursuant to distinct contracts which had spelt out different specifications. The petitioner relied upon Sections 3(a) and 3(b) and 5(2) of the CST Act. It was contended inter alia that the payments were directly linked to the erection and installation and not to local sales as to attract DVAT. The petitioner s appeals to the Special Commissioner (OHA) were rejected. The petitioner had relied upon a Division Bench ruling of this Court in ABB Limited Vs. The Commissioner, Delhi Value Added Tax 194 (2012) DLT 97 (DB). 6. The OHA rejected the submissions made by the petitioner/appellant inter alia recording as follows:- 11. It is noteworthy that the items supplied by the objector against these three companies are such which are not consumer specific and specifications could be common to many other operat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... than DMRC since the sales do not qualify as such. Hence disallowance of the exemptions on the interstate sale/import is upheld and the contention of the objector dealer that the present case is covered by the cited judgments is not found sustainable. I4. Certain transit sales were also made by the objector dealer for NDPL/ BSES. The contentions of the counsel that these were in pursuance of the contract with the NDPL was examined. It was observed that delivery of the goods was taken by the objector dealer itself and transit sale transaction was not complete as property in goods was effected by transfer of documents of title while the goods were not in transit. It was already predetermined that the goods wee to be transferred to NDPL/BSES. Hence the transfer of goods by transfer of documents was predetermined and not effected in course of transit. In ase of works contract the title of goods passes as and when goods are used in works contract. Section 3(b) of the CST Act provides for passing of property in goods by transfer of document of title of the goods while the goods are in transit from one state to another, unless the property in goods passes by transfer of document of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... save and except its customers are different. It is also highlighted that these cases involve three different types of transactions, all of which fall within the scope of inter State sale , defined under the Central Sales Tax Act. It is submitted that the first kind of transaction is a movement of goods, appropriated to the contracts by the petitioners which it manufactures, from other parts of the country but which ultimately are used for its customers purposes in the latter s premises this falls under Section 3(a) of CST Act. The second kind of transaction is covered by Section 3(b) of CST Act i.e. bought out items strictly in accordance with the specifications, used for erection and installation purposes and the goods are imported again for the purpose of fulfilling the contractual obligations subjected to Section 5(2) of CST Act. In that sense, there is no difference between the nature of the transactions in this case and those dealt with in the judgment of this Court. The petitioner had entered into contracts with DMRC in the previous reported decision. 9. Counsel for the revenue on the other hand argued that there are important differences in the nature of the tran ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the contract and the entire conspectus of law on the issues as notice earlier, leave us with no option but to hold that the movement of goods by way of imports or by way of inter-state trade in this case was in pursuance of the conditions and/or as an incident of the contract between the assessee and DMRC. The goods were of specific quality and description for being used in the works contract awarded on turnkey basis to the assessee and there was no possibility of such goods being diverted by the assessee for any other purpose. Hence the law laid down in K .G. Khosla Co. (P) Ltd. v. CCT, AIR 1966 SC 1216 has rightly been applied to this case by the High Court. We find no reasons to take a different view. 11. The Revenue is undoubtedly correct in submitting that the DVAT Tribunal has granted significant relief to the petitioners. At the same time, the Court notices that the declaration of law by the Supreme Court was in respect of almost the nature of the transactions as in this case; they do not prima facie differ from the facts that led to the judgment of the Division Bench (as endorsed by the Supreme Court). No significant material particulars were shown to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
