1973 (8) TMI 151 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
- Jurisdiction of assessing officer in determining if goods are ascertained or unascertained
- Application of Central Sales Tax Act to inter-State transactions
- Interpretation of invoices as evidence of intention in sale of goods

Analysis:
The judgment involved a batch of writ petitions challenging the jurisdiction of the assessing officer in determining whether goods in inter-State transactions were ascertained or unascertained. The petitioner, a company with offices in various states, was subject to Central sales tax for transactions with purchasers in Tamil Nadu. The assessing officer reopened assessments for previous years, alleging an escapement of tax. The petitioner contended that the goods were ascertained and not subject to tax in Tamil Nadu. The court analyzed the invoices issued by the petitioner, which indicated a concluded contract and intention to dispatch specific goods, leading to the conclusion that the goods were ascertained. The court distinguished the case from precedent involving unascertained goods, ultimately ruling in favor of the petitioner, holding the assessing officer's order as erroneous and without jurisdiction.

The second issue addressed in the judgment was the application of the Central Sales Tax Act to inter-State transactions. The court examined the movement of goods from out-of-State states to Tamil Nadu based on specific orders from buyers. It noted that other states had already taxed these transactions as inter-State sales. The court held that the goods moved from outside states pursuant to contracts and were rightly taxed by the states of dispatch, not Tamil Nadu. The branch office in Tamil Nadu was merely involved in collecting payments and did not impact the inter-State nature of the transactions. The court found the assessing officer's order to be erroneous and lacking jurisdiction in this regard as well.

Lastly, the judgment delved into the interpretation of invoices as evidence of intention in the sale of goods. The court emphasized that invoices reflect a concluded contract between the parties regarding the quality, quantity, and price of goods. By analyzing the invoices issued by the petitioner, the court determined that the goods were ascertained based on the clear intention displayed in the documents. The court distinguished previous cases involving unascertained goods and applied the principle that when goods move as a result of a contract from an out-of-State state, the assessing state is the one where the movement initiated. This interpretation led to the ruling in favor of the petitioner, emphasizing the importance of intention and evidence in determining the nature of goods in inter-State transactions.