9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 1203X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A No.540/03 on the file of the first respondent/Tribunal. 2. The petitioner is a dealer in electrical and hardware items and they were assessed under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act (in short, the Act). According to the petitioner, most of the electrical and hardware items are being supplied by them to Government Departments as per their specification. During the assessment year 1996-1997, the petitioner received a purchase order from the Atomic Power Project, Kalpakkam to supply certain electrical goods and they in turn forwarded it to a supplier at Calcutta. The supplier at Calcutta consigned the goods on behalf of the petitioner and supplied it to the Atomic Power Project, Kalpakkam. Thus, the supply of the items made by the suppli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order placed by the Atomic Power Project, Kalpakkam on the petitioner preceded the occasion of movement of goods from Calcutta, which has not been denied by the third respondent. When there is no break in journey during transit of goods and the petitioner did not handle the goods till the point of supply at Kalpakkam, the levy of sales tax under the Act by treating it as local sale is unsustainable and illegal. The petitioner genuinely claimed exemption on transit sales and complied with all the mandatory requirements such as production of E1 and C declaration forms. It is not disputed by the third respondent that the delivery of goods was taken by the purchaser at Kalpakkam, which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ied 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 supplier may not be knowing the purchaser's name and address. Therefore, whether the supply of goods effected by the petitioner was a transit sale or it was a local sale, disentitling them from claiming ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
