9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (2) TMI 312X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... epots in the State of Bihar. The impugned order has treated the movement to be arising out of inter-state supply of goods instead of inter-state stock transfers as claimed by the appellant. 3. The appellant holds a license for the manufacture and sale of liquor under the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950 [the Rajasthan Act] and is also a registered dealer under the Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003 [the RVAT Act] as well as under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 [the Act]. The appellant manufactures Indian Made Foreign Liquor at its bottling plant located in the State of Rajasthan. Various States have created separate entities which are State Beverages Corporations to facilitate and regulate retail sale of liquor in their States. The State of Bihar has established The Bihar State Beverages Corporation Limited [the Corporation]. 4. Shri Puneet Agarwal, learned counsel for the appellant assisted by Ms. Nitya Sharma has submitted that the issue involved in this appeal had also come up for consideration before this Tribunal earlier in matters concerning three companies, namely, M/s Carlsberg India Pvt. Ltd., M/s United Breweries Ltd., M/s Mount Shivalik Industries Ltd. and this Tribunal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pplying beer to the Corporation for subsequent distribution shall have to submit documents, including the Master Agreement. The Corporation issues OFS on the depots of Carlsberg in the State of Bihar based on the stock requirements of the Corporation, but the Corporation has the right to decide the quantity for which OFS can be issued and the Corporation is also under no obligation to procure any specified minimum quantities of any brand of beer during the currency of the contract. This apart, the Corporation is not under any legal compulsion to procure all or any brand produced by the manufacturer simply because they have signed the Master Agreement. The OFS indicates the validity date within which the manufacturer has to complete the delivery and if the manufacturer does not supply the entire quantity indicated in the OFS within the validity period, the order for the remaining quantity lapses automatically. The stocks have to be delivered at the concerned depots of the Corporation at the cost and risk of the manufacturer. Any delivery that deviates from the OFS is not acknowledged by the Corporation and would not be unloaded at the depots. What is important to note is that the su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. The movement of the goods from Meerut in the State of Uttar Pradesh to Delhi was, therefore, held not to be in pursuance of any transaction of sale. The sale, it was held, took place only at Delhi when an order was actually placed by the Collector of Central Excise, Delhi. The High Court, therefore, concluded that the Agreements did not bring about any sale. 52. The Karnataka High Court in BASF India noticed that manufacturing unit of the petitioner was situated in the State of Karnataka but it had warehouses in the States of Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, Haryana and Uttarakhand. The writ petitioner had contended that after it received purchase orders, it transferred the stock to its godowns near the manufacturing unit of the customers and supplied the paint as and when the indent was received. The Karnataka High Court, in such circumstances, held that the purchase orders issued from time to time for supply of goods actually constituted a contract between the parties and thus the sale effected pursuant to such purchase orders was an inter-state sale in that State. The movement of goods from the State of Karnataka to where the manufacturing units of the buyers was situated was, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eer from its factory in the State of Rajasthan to its depots in the State of Rajasthan from time to time through Form-F, depending on estimation of market demand and that it is only when OFS is placed by the Corporation on the depots of the appellants in the State of Bihar that the goods are sold. Thus, it is the OFS that concludes the contract of sale between Carlsberg and the Corporation. The movement of goods from the State of Rajasthan to the depots of Carlsberg in the State of Bihar, therefore, cannot be said to have been occasioned by reason of any sale agreement. The appellants treated the sale from its depots in the State of Bihar to the Corporation in the State of Bihar as sale and paid local VAT. 55.There can, therefore, be no manner of doubt that the movement of goods from the manufacturing units of the appellants situated in the State of Rajasthan to the depots of the appellants in the State of Bihar or the State of Jharkhand was not occasioned by any prior contract of sale or agreement to sell. The appellants had merely stock transferred beer from the manufacturing units of the appellants situated in the State of Rajasthan to the depots of the appellants situated in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Agreement, therefore, cannot be treated to be an agreement to sell. It would, in fact, be in the nature of a standing order or a tender which does not amount to a sale or an agreement to sell. It is, therefore, clear that none of the clauses of the Master Agreement contemplate or refer to any inter-state delivery of the goods from the State of Rajasthan to the State of Bihar or the State of Jharkhand. The movement of goods cannot also be considered incidental to the Master Agreement. Reliance placed by the Rajasthan Tax Board and the learned senior counsel for the State of Rajasthan on clause 2 of the Master Agreement to justify that the movement of goods occurred incidental to the Master Agreement, is not correct. 58. The matters pertaining to United Breweries and Mount Shivalik are similar. 59. It will, therefore, not be possible to sustain the order dated 24.11.2014 passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board. It is, accordingly, set aside and all the fourteen appeals filed by Carlsberg, United Breweries and Mount Shivalik are allowed." (emphasis supplied) 8. A perusal of the order dated 28.12.2015 passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board shows that it has reproduced the observations ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
