TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 1203X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ved an order from the Atomic Power Project, Kalpakkam for supply of certain electrical goods. The purchase order so received has been forwarded by them to its supplier at Calcutta and they in turn supplied the goods directly to the Atomic Power Project, Kalpakkam. However, it is stated that such supply and/or delivery of goods effected by the supplier at Calcutta is for and on behalf of the petitioner and consequently, they are entitled to claim exemption under Section 6 (2) of the CST Act. But, such claim of the petitioner was rejected and the sale was treated as a local sale by the third respondent on the ground that form E1 issued by the supplier from Calcutta contains the place of destination as Kalpakkam and in a transit sale, the supp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oods on behalf of the petitioner and supplied it to the Atomic Power Project, Kalpakkam. Thus, the supply of the items made by the supplier at Calcutta is for and on behalf of the petitioner. The items so supplied were delicate to handle and in order to avoid mishandling, the petitioner directed its supplier in Calcutta to directly dispatch the items to Atomic Power Project, Kalpakkam. Therefore, during the original assessment, exemption was granted to the petitioner for transit sale under the Central Sales Tax (CST) Act, however, it was reversed under the Act by disallowing the claim of exemption on transit sale by treating it as a local sale. The reason for such rejection of the claim for exemption is that the Form E1 issued by the suppli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd C declaration forms. It is not disputed by the third respondent that the delivery of goods was taken by the purchaser at Kalpakkam, which is one of the requirements to be proved by the petitioner for claiming exemption under Section 6 (2) of the CST Act. While so, the rejection of claim of exemption on the ground that in Form E1, the place of destination of goods is mentioned as Kalpakkam and therefore, the supplier knew the ultimate purchaser is not sustainable. The learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, prayed for setting aside the order passed by the first respondent by allowing this writ petition. 5. The learned Government Advocate (Taxes) appearing for the respondents 2 3 submitted that the Department of Atomic Energy, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dress. Therefore, whether the supply of goods effected by the petitioner was a transit sale or it was a local sale, disentitling them from claiming exemption, has to be examined. 8. This issue is no longer res integra as it is covered by the Judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Vinay Cotton Waste Company vs. The State of Tamil Nadu reported in (1986) 63 STC 391 (Mad) wherein it was held as follows:- We are not inclined to agree with the learned counsel for the assessee that an inter-state sale can take place only between two dealers in two different States. It is possible that even as between dealers in the same State, an inter-state sale can take place. Even if the seller and the buyer are in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
