TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 156X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... purchased against Form 3-A. Therefore, there is no doubt that the sale of chassis with mounted body made by the revisionist would be selling a product, which is in different condition from the chassis or the body and thus, the same would be liable to be purchase tax under section 3AAA of the Act. Other submission cannot be permitted to be raised in the revisioinal jurisdiction, for the first time. Revision dismissed. - Sales/Trade Tax Revision No. - 970 of 2010, 343 of 2013 - - - Dated:- 5-1-2022 - Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal, J. For the Revisionist : Krishna Agarwal For the Opposite Party : C.S.C. ORDER HON'BLE PIYUSH AGRAWAL,J. 1. Heard Krishna Agarwal, learned counsel for the revisionist and Shri A.C. Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel for the opposite party. 2. These two revisions were listed together as the issue involved are interlinked and therefore, the same are being decided by the common order. SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 970 of 2010 3. The present revision has been filed against the order dated 18.09.2010 passed by Commercial Tax Tribunal, Allahabad in Second Appeal No. 120 of 2010 for the assessment year 2005 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not accompanying with the goods. He further submitted that for mounting the body, Form C as contemplated under Central Sales Tax Act has been issued by the revisionist and therefore lower rate was charged by the body builder i.e. 4 %. He further submits that transactions were duly entered in the books of account, the ownership of the vehicle remained with the revisionist as clear from as Ground No. 3 as taken before the 1st appellate authority as well as the Tribunal and Form 31 was duly submitted therefore there was no intention to avoid any payment of tax. 7. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel submits that the revisionist purchases and sales chassis. Chassis were purchased against Form 3 A and thereafter before selling the chassis, the same were sent to Jabalpur for mounting body over it and thereafter the said chassis along with body was coming back, which was completely a new commercial commodity. He further submits that the assessee is an old registered dealer but in the previous year no such sale of chassis (purchased against Form 3 A) on which the bodies were got mounted, had been disclosed and in the event the dumpers in question were not intercepted, the revisioni ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce requisite Form 3 A, as prescribed under UP Trade Tax Act and Form C as prescribed under Central Sales Tax Act, were issued with an intention to evade the tax liability. More over, when the temporary registration and the transit insurance were also in the name of the revisionist. The revisionist is an old dealer of Tata Motors Limited and purchasing as well as selling the chassis purchased against Form 3 A but never paid any tax as contemplated under the Act, prescribed for purchase made against Form 3 A, after the body were mounted on so purchased chassis. The provisions provides that in the event any goods were purchased against Form 3 A, the respective dealer was required to sell the goods in same form and condition. As and when as the body mounted over the chassis, a new commercial commodity come into existence. Once nature of the goods, so purchased against Form 3 A, is changed, the liability of tax immediately occurs and the revisionist were liable for payment of tax. But the record reveals that the revisionist had never paid the tax, after the nature / character of the chassis were changed in the previous year. The intention of the revisionist was not to pay the tax due t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with its customers which is a validly executed document and presuming the sale of Motor Vehicle instead of Chassis? 3) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified in ignoring the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vodafone as well that of the Tribunal in the case of M/s Soorajpur Kasna, Noida = -v- CCT wherein any agreement legally entered into which in effect is a part of tax planning cannot be taken as adverse? 4) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified to ignore the remand order passed by the appellate authority and direction issued therein as well as the judgement of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Marudhara Motors Limited? 15. The brief facts of the case are that the revisionist in the disputed year, the revisionist had purchased motor vehicles and chassis against Form 3-A as the said commodity is taxable on the point of sale to the consumer under section 3AAA of the U.P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as, ' the Act '). The goods so purchased against Form 3-A has to be sold in the same form and condition. In the disp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... irectly from outside the State of Uttar Praesh; and thirdly, the applicant purchases the spare parts within the State of U.P. after due payment of tax on the same. In all the three conditions, the items/ goods were used against replacement of warranty claimed by the customers and the tax has already been paid and therefore, there was no question of any sale of the said items again and hence, the authorities were not justified in imposing tax on the spare parts replaced against warranty claimed by the customers. 18. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel submits that once the dealer issues Form 3-A for purchase of chassis, the same should have been sold in the same form and condition. Merely on the strength of agreement, the dealer cannot escape its liability for payment of tax and it is incorrect to suggest that merely the body was mounted on the chassis at the request of concerned buyers. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that the chassis does not remain as such and form and condition changes after mounting of body on it. He further points out that once the body is mounted on the chassis, it becomes at truck or bus as per the requirement of the purchaser. Chasis in quest ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , then Form 32 as prescribed under the Trade Tax Act would have been used by the purchaser and not by seller. This itself shows that a contradictory stand has been taken by the revisionist. More precisely, on the one hand, the stand taken that the delivery has been given to the respective purchasers before mounting of body on it and on the contrary, while the goods are coming back to the State of Uttar Pradesh, Form 31 of the revisionist has been used. Insurance policy (transit insurance) and provisional registration was also in the name of the revisionist. The record further reveals that at Annexure No. 5 some agreements were being annexed, which are dated 10.01.2006, against which the sale invoices have been raised, one invoice no. CA 500779 dated 20.02.2006; wherein, booking date has been mentioned as 18.02.2006. Therefore, the agreement dated 10.01.2006 cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be treated to be connected with the said sale. In the agreement, delivery date has been mentioned as 10.01.2006 and while issuing common invoice for chassis and body was arrived. The agreement and the invoices are of no help to the revisionist. 21. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nnot be permitted to be raised in the revisioinal jurisdiction, for the first time. Moreover, the issue with regard to claim of replacement of warranty against the warranty of the customers, for which credit note has been received from the Company, is res integra as this Court as well as the Apex Court have decided the issue against the assessee in the case of Mohd. Ekram Khan Sons (supra) and S/S Maskat Motors Pvt. Ltd (supra). 25. This court in the case of Maskat Motros Pvt. Ltd. (supra), in paragraph nos. 9 38 held as under:- 8. Thus, the crux of submissions of the respondent-assessee are as under: i. The spare parts were purchased by the assessee from the manufacturer against form-C. ii. The relationship of seller (respondent-assessee) and purchaser (hereinafter referred to as the 'consumer') ceases after the vehicles are sold. iii. Warranty has been offered by M/s. Tata Motors Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 'manufacturer') to the consumer in respect to its product namely motor vehicles, under which, parts fitted in the vehicle are replaced, if claimed by a consumer and found defective during warranty period. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
