2006 (1) TMI 563 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to sales tax notices on transfer of corporeal rights; Jurisdiction of State of Gujarat to levy tax on out-of-state transactions; Interpretation of legal provisions defining specified sales and taxability.

Analysis:
The judgment dealt with the challenge against sales tax notices issued to a company for transferring corporeal rights to another entity. The company contended that as the transfer took place in Maharashtra, it should not be taxed by Gujarat. The respondents argued that since the rights were located in Gujarat, the tax was applicable. The petitioner relied on section 87 of the Act and article 286 of the Constitution to support their case that Gujarat had no authority to levy tax on out-of-state transactions. Reference was made to the judgment in 20th Century Finance Corpn. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra [2000] 119 STC 182 to strengthen the argument against the tax notices.

The petitioner's counsel argued that the transfers in question were not taxable under the Act and that the demands made by the authorities were illegal. On the other hand, the respondent's counsel contended that the precedent cited did not apply to the present case due to differing legal provisions in various states. Reference was made to the judgment in Tata Consultancy Services v. State of Andhra Pradesh [2004] 137 STC 620 to support this argument.

The judgment referred to the transfer of corporeal rights in Mumbai and the legal implications of such transfers. It highlighted a similar case before the Supreme Court and the differing views on the taxability of such transactions. The judgment emphasized the importance of where the property in goods passes for determining tax liability, as per the legal provisions and precedents.

The court analyzed the relevant sections of the Act, specifically section 3A, which mandated sales tax on specified sales exceeding a certain limit. It noted that the Act did not establish a legal fiction to fix the situs of such sales. Citing the 20th Century Finance Corpn. Ltd. case, the judgment concluded that tax liability arises where the property in goods is actually passed. Since the transfers occurred in Maharashtra, the tax notices issued by Gujarat were deemed invalid.

In conclusion, the court allowed the petition, quashed the notices, and ordered the refund of tax and interest to the petitioner. The ruling was in favor of the company, emphasizing the importance of the place of transfer for determining tax liability in such transactions.