1995 (5) TMI 248 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Determination of whether the transactions of the dealer constitute inter-State sales.
2. Leviability of Central sales tax on declared goods already taxed under the Orissa Sales Tax Act.

Analysis:
1. The case involved a dealer in hides and skins who claimed that his sales were intra-State, while the assessing officer concluded they were inter-State, demanding Central sales tax. The Tribunal upheld the inter-State nature of the sales, considering the movement of goods between states as the key factor, following the criteria set by the Supreme Court. The Court agreed with the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing the importance of the goods' movement in determining inter-State sales. The dealer's argument was found to be unsubstantiated, leading to the dismissal of the appeal and confirming the Tribunal's decision.

2. The dealer's representative requested the Court to consider the leviability of Central sales tax on goods already taxed under the Orissa Sales Tax Act, citing a specific notification. However, the Court explained that the notification in question had been rescinded by the State Government with retrospective effect. Despite a subsequent Full Bench decision upholding the notification's validity, the Court clarified that the rescission by the State Government rendered the notification irrelevant. The Court declined to reframe the question raised by the dealer's representative, as it was not previously addressed in lower forums. Ultimately, the Court ruled against the dealer on this issue as well, affirming the Tribunal's decision on the inter-State nature of the sales and disposing of the reference application accordingly.

In conclusion, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision that the dealer's transactions constituted inter-State sales based on the movement of goods between states. Additionally, the Court clarified the inapplicability of Central sales tax on goods already taxed under the Orissa Sales Tax Act due to the rescission of the relevant notification by the State Government. The Court's ruling was comprehensive, addressing both issues raised in the case and providing detailed reasoning for its decisions.