1994 (1) TMI 248 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Denial of exemption on stock transfers.
2. Reopening of assessments and remand orders.
3. Maintainability and scope of stay applications under section 36(5) of the TNGST Act.
4. Inherent powers of the Tribunal to grant stay on remand orders.
5. Application of precedents on implied or ancillary powers of appellate authorities.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Denial of Exemption on Stock Transfers:
The petitioner, Lipton India Ltd., claimed exemptions on stock transfers from its Coimbatore branch to its clearing and forwarding agent in Palghat, Kerala, for the assessment years 1984-85 to 1986-87 under the CST Act. However, upon inspection, it was found that the goods were moved based on specific orders from buyers and directly delivered to them, indicating that these were not genuine stock transfers but direct inter-State sales. Consequently, the exemptions were revoked for the years 1984-85 to 1986-87 and disallowed for 1987-88 to 1989-90.

2. Reopening of Assessments and Remand Orders:
The Assistant Commissioner reopened the assessments for 1984-85 to 1986-87 and disallowed exemptions for 1987-88 to 1989-90. The petitioner appealed, and the Deputy Commissioner set aside the assessment orders and remanded the matters back to the Assistant Commissioner for fresh consideration with specific directions.

3. Maintainability and Scope of Stay Applications under Section 36(5) of the TNGST Act:
The petitioner filed appeals and stay applications before the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, seeking to stay further proceedings by the Assistant Commissioner. The Tribunal focused on whether it had the power to stay proceedings under section 36(5) of the TNGST Act. The Tribunal concluded that it did not have the power to stay the proceedings of the Assistant Commissioner under this section.

4. Inherent Powers of the Tribunal to Grant Stay on Remand Orders:
The petitioner argued that the Tribunal had inherent powers to stay the effect of the remand order, citing several precedents. The Tribunal, however, found these precedents inapplicable and dismissed the stay applications, leading to the current writ petitions.

5. Application of Precedents on Implied or Ancillary Powers of Appellate Authorities:
The High Court examined various precedents, including Burhanpur Tapti Mill Ltd. v. Board of Revenue and State of Orissa v. Member, Sales Tax Tribunal, which discussed the implied powers of appellate authorities to grant stay to prevent injustice and make the exercise of appellate jurisdiction effective. The Court concluded that the Tribunal has ancillary or incidental powers to grant a stay on the remand order to prevent the appeal from being rendered nugatory.

Conclusion:
The High Court quashed the Tribunal's composite order, recognizing the Tribunal's power to grant a stay on the remand order as an ancillary power necessary for the effective exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. The Court directed the assessing officer to proceed with the assessments up to the stage of passing final orders and await the outcome of the pending appeals before the Tribunal. The writ petitions were disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.