TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 88X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tition filed by the State - petition allowed for this part. Whether the interstate sales of ₹ 1,86,109/- assessed at 10% for the non submission of ''c'' Forms is to be sustained or not? - Held that: - the finding of the second respondent is sustained and to that extent, the writ petition is dismissed. Petition allowed - decided partly in favor of petitioner. - W.P.No. 11490 of 2004, W.P.M.P.No.13518 of 2004 - - - Dated:- 11-7-2017 - T. S. Sivagnanam, J. For the Petitioner : Mr. S. N. Kirubanandam For the Respondents : Mr.K.Venkatesh Government Advocate for R1 ORDER Heard Mr.S.N.Kirubanandam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.K.Venkatesh, learned Government Advocate appearing for the first respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 999) 115 STC 279 wherein it was held that on facts it was clear that the goods had been sold to the Government though delivery of the goods was effected to the ESI hospitals pursuant to the directions given by the Officer of the Government who placed the order. Once it was clear that the Government was the buyer of the goods, Government was certainly competent to issue D form through its authorised officer. The Director of Medical Services being the Officer who placed the order, the form signed by him was prima facie in accordance with the requirements of the provisions of the statute and the rules. 4. The above said observation was made by the Division Bench after considering the statutory provision Section 8(4) of Central Sales Tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arty to whom the buyer had directed the delivery. That obligation was clearly recognised by the Government in this case. The payment for the goods supplied was made by the Government. The payment was accounted for, for the purpose of the Government's records as a payment debitable under the head E.S.I. Scheme . The manner in which the Government maintains its accounts, and the head under which the amounts paid by it were debited does not have any relevance for the purpose of deciding as to whether the Government is the buyer. The order placed by the Government clearly placed the Government in the position of a buyer, and the payment made for the goods supplied clearly establishes that the Government itself had no doubt that it was the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
