2001 (4) TMI 784 - SC - VAT and Sales Tax

Non payment of Central sales tax to the State of Tamil Nadu for import of cement into India Held that - Appeal allowed. There was also no basis for the High Court to conclude the fact that the lorries loaded with cement at Tuticorin were moved directly to the premises of the customer in Kerala, in the background of these facts, cannot be regarded as a factor tilting the scales in favour of a finding that these were inter-State sales. It may also be noticed that the sales tax authorities had also come to the conclusion on the basis of record that well before the arrival of the shipment at Tuticorin port, the respondent had opened its office at Tuticorin and that no material had been produced about the non-availability of berth at Cochin when the ship reached Indian Ocean.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of sales tax liability in inter-State transactions involving imported goods.
2. Consideration of factual findings by lower authorities in sales tax assessment.
3. Evaluation of material evidence supporting the location of unloading imported goods.
4. Examination of the basis for setting aside lower authorities' findings by the High Court in sales tax assessment.

Analysis:
1. The case involved the Kerala State Small Industries Development and Employment Corporation Ltd. importing cement into India under an import license. The respondent argued that no Central sales tax was due to the State of Tamil Nadu for direct sales made to customers in Kerala. However, the Sales Tax Department of Tamil Nadu conducted an investigation, concluding that sales were camouflaged to avoid inter-State sales tax. The assessing authority imposed Central sales tax for the years 1982-83 and 1983-84, which was upheld by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal.

2. The respondent challenged the Tribunal's orders in the High Court, which set aside the assessments based on the fortuitous circumstance of unloading cement at Tuticorin port due to congestion at Cochin port. The appellant contended that the High Court lacked material to support this conclusion, leading to an erroneous judgment. The factual findings of lower authorities, including the direct sales from Tuticorin to Kerala, were disregarded without proper basis.

3. The High Court's decision was based on the assumption that Tuticorin port was chosen due to unforeseen circumstances, despite evidence showing the respondent's established branch office at Tuticorin before the ships' arrival. The High Court's reasoning regarding the direct delivery of cement to customers in Kerala from Tuticorin lacked substantial support from the record. Additionally, the absence of evidence regarding Cochin port's unavailability when the ship arrived was noted.

4. Ultimately, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, emphasizing the lack of material to support the decision to overturn the lower authorities' findings. The High Court's conclusions regarding the unloading location and sales transactions lacked a factual basis, leading to the appeals being allowed with costs. The case highlights the importance of factual evidence and proper evaluation in determining sales tax liability in inter-State transactions involving imported goods.