1984 (7) TMI 344 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether a turnover of Rs. 3,11,400 represents inter-State sales effected by the assessee during the assessment year 1979-80 or local sales.
2. Whether the sale between the assessee and the buyer at Madras should be treated as an inter-State sale or a local sale.
3. Whether the movement of goods from Coimbatore to Pondicherry in pursuance of the contract constitutes an inter-State sale by the assessee.

Analysis:
1. The case involved a dispute over the turnover of Rs. 3,11,400, with the assessee contending that it represents local sales to a Madras company, not inter-State sales. The Tribunal held that the contract between the assessee and the Madras company, which involved the movement of goods outside the state, constituted inter-State sales. The assessee argued that the movement of goods to Pondicherry was done by the buyer's representative, not the assessee. However, the assessing authority and appellate authority upheld the view that the sale is liable to be taxed under the Central Sales Tax Act due to the movement of goods. The Court analyzed the sale agreement, which obligated the assessee to transport goods to Pondicherry, and concluded that the transaction fell under the definition of inter-State sale as per the Central Sales Tax Act.

2. The Court examined the specific clause in the sale contract requiring the assessee to transport goods from Coimbatore to Pondicherry, with the Madras buyer as the consignor. It was determined that this clause triggered the definition of inter-State sale under the Central Sales Tax Act, as it occasioned the movement of goods from one state to another. The Court rejected the assessee's argument that inter-State sales can only occur between dealers in different states, emphasizing that even if the parties are in the same state, a sale can be inter-State if it involves the movement of goods across state borders. The Court held that the contract between the assessee and the Madras buyer, which mandated the movement of goods to Pondicherry, constituted an inter-State sale, regardless of subsequent transactions between the buyer and the Pondicherry dealer.

3. The assessee's alternative argument, claiming that the buyer's agent took delivery at Coimbatore and dispatched the goods to Pondicherry, was refuted by the Tribunal based on the evidence presented. The Court agreed with the Tribunal's finding that the assessee, not the buyer's representative, despatched the goods to Pondicherry as per the contract terms. The Court emphasized that the obligation to despatch the goods to Pondicherry, as specified in the contract, established the inter-State nature of the sale. It was clarified that the mode of transport (lorries) was not relevant for determining the inter-State nature of the sale, as the crucial factor was whether the sale contract occasioned the movement of goods across state borders. Ultimately, the Court dismissed the tax case, affirming that the turnover of Rs. 3,11,400 represented inter-State sales, not local sales.