1982 (8) TMI 202 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the transactions in question were inter-State sales or local sales.
2. The impact of the High Court's previous decision in writ petitions on the current appeals.
3. The validity of the statements given by the assessees before the assessing authority.
4. The relevance of affidavits from out-of-State buyers and C forms in determining the nature of sales.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the transactions in question were inter-State sales or local sales:
The primary issue was whether the disputed turnovers represented inter-State sales or local sales. The assessee claimed exemptions on the basis that the transactions were inter-State sales. However, the assessing authority rejected this claim, stating that there was no prior contract of sale, the incidental charges for moving the goods were not met by the assessee, and the goods were delivered at the assessee's place of business to outside dealers. The Board of Revenue upheld the assessing authority's decision, concluding that the transactions were local sales because the goods were sold locally to out-of-State dealers who then transported the goods themselves.

2. The impact of the High Court's previous decision in writ petitions on the current appeals:
The Board of Revenue noted that the High Court had previously dismissed writ petitions filed by the assessees, sustaining the order of the assessing authority on merits. The High Court had observed that the consignment was not made by the assessee to the orders of the out-of-State buyers and that there was nothing to show that the transactions were of an inter-State character. The current judgment held that the assessees were bound by this previous decision, as they did not present any additional material to alter the finding that the transactions were not inter-State sales.

3. The validity of the statements given by the assessees before the assessing authority:
The Board of Revenue relied on statements given by the assessees admitting that the transactions were local sales. The assessees later contended that these statements were obtained under coercion, persuasion, and misrepresentation. However, the court found this contention to be an afterthought, as the assessees did not challenge the statements' validity during the proceedings before the Board of Revenue. The court concluded that the Board of Revenue was not in error in acting upon these statements.

4. The relevance of affidavits from out-of-State buyers and C forms in determining the nature of sales:
The assessees argued that affidavits from out-of-State buyers and C forms indicated that the sales were inter-State. However, the court noted that the price agreed upon was ex-godown, and the goods were delivered at the sellers' place, with the buyers arranging for transportation. The court referenced previous judgments, stating that for a sale to be considered inter-State, there must be an obligation to transport the goods outside the State, which can be inferred from circumstantial evidence. In this case, the court found that the transactions were local sales, as the goods were sold locally and then moved at the buyers' responsibility.

Conclusion:
The court upheld the Board of Revenue's decision that the disputed turnovers were local sales and not inter-State sales. The appeals were dismissed, and the view taken by the Board of Revenue was confirmed. There was no order as to costs.