1994 (4) TMI 354 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of section 22 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 in a tax revision case regarding sales made by a corporation through agents in Calcutta. Examination of the burden of proof under section 6-A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 in case of transfer of goods claimed otherwise than by way of sale. Determination of the relationship between the corporation and its agents based on the agreement terms. Assessment of the evidence provided by the corporation to support its claim of exemption under the Central Sales Tax Act.

The judgment revolves around a tax revision case where the State challenged the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal's decision regarding sales made by a corporation through agents in Calcutta. The Tribunal held that the corporation had discharged its initial burden by filing "F" forms under section 6-A of the Central Sales Tax Act, and the assessing authority's rejection of the forms was incorrect. The Tribunal concluded that the agents in Calcutta sold the goods as the corporation's goods, not their own, and used the corporation's bill books. The State filed the revision case without specifying the exact question of law for consideration under section 22 of the Act.

The dispute centered on the interpretation of section 6-A of the Central Sales Tax Act, which outlines the burden of proof in cases of goods transfer not by sale. The corporation provided "F" forms and evidence of goods dispatch to support its claim. The clause in the agreement between the corporation and its agents, cited by the assessing authority, did not establish a seller-purchaser relationship but rather a principal-agent relationship. The Tribunal found that the corporation had met the requirements of section 6-A, and the agents' actions aligned with acting on behalf of the corporation, not as independent sellers.

The Tribunal's decision was upheld as it correctly applied the law. The burden of proof under section 6-A was satisfied by the corporation through the "F" forms, and the agreement terms indicated a principal-agent relationship, not a seller-purchaser one. The evidence presented, including sale patties and bill books, supported the corporation's position. The Tribunal's ruling was deemed error-free, leading to the dismissal of the tax revision case. Costs were not awarded due to the corporation being a State-owned entity.

---