2023 (8) TMI 52

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... terprises in the State of Rajasthan for the purpose of sale there. Under Section 6(A) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (the Act) the onus is on the dealer to show that the movement of the goods from one State, i.e., Maharashtra to another state, i.e., Rajasthan was occasioned by reason to transfer of such goods by respondent to his agent, not by reason of sale, if the dealer claims he is not liable to pay tax under the Act. For this purpose, the dealer may furnish to the Assessing Officer a declaration in Form F duly filled and signed by his agent containing the particulars required alongwith the evidence of dispatch of goods. Admittedly, respondent has complied with these conditions of Section 6(A) of the Act. The forms were on record an .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ctive official gazette for the information of all concerned and the Rajasthan Government had forwarded the copy of notification to Maharashtra Government also but the Maharashtra Government which was required to publish the notification in its official gazette, failed to do so. Therefore, since there is a breach of the rules by the State itself, the assessment order has to be quashed. 5. The other ground which was raised was that the goods were transferred to M/s Akash Enterprises in the year 2010-2011 and the F forms were duly issued to the said agent by the Rajasthan Sales Tax Department. M/s Akash Enterprises was in existence when the F forms were issued and it was in existence till 31st March 2014. The registration of M/s Akash Enterpr .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... deduction for the transfers made in the year 2011. 7. The Tribunal had also relied upon similar view taken by the Madras High Court in Agfa-Gavert India Limited Vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2001) 123 STC 108 (Madras High Court) and Bell Ceramics Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Transition- 3), Bangalore (2011) 38 VST 388 Karnataka High Court. 8. The judgment of the Apex Court in State of Karnataka Vs. Ecom Gill Coffee Trading Private Limited 2023 SCC Online SC 248., relied upon by Ms Chavan, will be of no assistance to appellant since in that case the court held that the the ITC can be claimed only on the genuine transaction of the sale and purchase and if a dealer knowingly issues or produces a false tax invoice, credit or .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X