1989 (8) TMI 321 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Application of section 6A of the Central Sales Tax Act.
2. Justification for enhancement of taxable turnover by the appellate authority.
3. Determination of inter-State sales based on the stock position statement.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Application of Section 6A of the Central Sales Tax Act:
The first issue was whether the Tribunal was justified in relying on section 6A of the Central Sales Tax Act in deciding the case and whether this reliance would materially affect the decision. The court concluded that section 6A, being prospective in nature, would not apply to the assessment year 1972-73 since it came into force on April 1, 1973. However, even without applying section 6A, the Tribunal's decision was upheld based on the circumstantial evidence. The court noted that the sale of goods in the same lot and on the same day of receipt at the Delhi branch office, along with the non-production of relevant records, led to the conclusion that the goods were moved in pursuance of a pre-existing contract of sale.

2. Justification for Enhancement of Taxable Turnover:
The second issue was whether the appellate authority was justified in enhancing the taxable turnover from Rs. 2,65,134.56 to Rs. 5,10,664.90 and whether the Tribunal was correct in upholding this enhancement. The court noted that this question did not arise out of the Tribunal's decision as the assessee had not challenged the appellate authority's enhancement of the turnover. The court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal II v. Smt. Anusuya Devi, which held that the High Court is not bound to answer a question that does not arise out of the Tribunal's order or is irrelevant to the dispute. Therefore, the court declined to answer this question.

3. Determination of Inter-State Sales:
The third issue was whether the Tribunal was justified in concluding that it was a case of inter-State sales even though the stock position statement was on record. The court found that this question also did not arise out of the Tribunal's order. The Tribunal had ignored the stock position statement due to the non-production of the actual stock register. The court emphasized that the circumstantial evidence, including the sale of goods in the same lot and on the same day to different purchasers, supported the conclusion of inter-State sales.

Conclusion:
The court answered the first question by stating that section 6A of the Central Sales Tax Act is prospective and would not affect the decision for the assessment year 1972-73. The second and third questions were not answered as they did not arise out of the Tribunal's order. The reference was answered accordingly.