9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2008 (6) TMI 552 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxWhether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal is justified in law in allowing the claim of Rs. 60, 82, 73, 339 in respect of various transactions of local sale and Rs. 23, 27, 45, 141 in respect of inter-State sale covered by bulk imports by ships and which were at an un-ascertained stage till the clearance from customs as sales in the course of imports by transfer of document of title to the goods within the meaning of section 5(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act 1956 read with section 75 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act 1959 and hence not liable to tax under the BST Act 1959 or CST Act 1956? Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal is justified in holding that provisions of Sale of Goods Act 1930 particularly section 18 of the Sale of Goods Act 1930 is not applicable to the transaction in dispute? Held that - The orders passed by the Tribunal rejecting the reference applications filed by the Commissioner cannot be faulted. See Sales Tax v. Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. 2006 (12) TMI 464 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT . Hence we dismiss both the aforesaid sales tax applications with no order as to costs.
Issues:
1. Interpretation of section 5(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 read with section 75 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959. 2. Applicability of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 to the transaction in dispute. Analysis: Issue 1: The first issue in this case revolves around the interpretation of section 5(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 in conjunction with section 75 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959. The Commissioner of Sales Tax filed reference applications seeking clarification on whether certain transactions of local and inter-State sales involving iron and steel items should be considered as sales in the course of imports and thus not liable to tax under the respective Acts. The Tribunal had allowed significant claims related to these transactions, prompting the Commissioner to challenge this decision. The High Court, in a previous judgment, concluded that since the sales were covered under the first limb of section 5(2) of the Central Act, the question of exemption under the second limb became academic. The Tribunal's refusal to refer questions regarding the second limb and the Sale of Goods Act applicability was upheld by the Court. The Supreme Court subsequently dismissed an appeal against this decision, affirming the Tribunal's stance. Issue 2: The second issue concerns the applicability of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 to the disputed transaction. The Tribunal had previously rejected reference applications on this matter, leading to further legal challenges. The High Court, based on the facts and circumstances of the case and the previous judgment, found that the Tribunal's decision was consistent with the law. The Court noted that the questions raised by the Commissioner were deemed academic and could be pursued in an appropriate forum. Consequently, the Court dismissed the sales tax applications filed by the Commissioner, emphasizing that the Tribunal's orders were justified given the existing legal framework and precedents. In conclusion, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decisions, emphasizing the importance of the legal interpretations made in previous judgments and the dismissal of similar appeals by the Supreme Court. The Court's analysis focused on the specific provisions of the Central and Bombay Sales Tax Acts, as well as the Sale of Goods Act, to determine the tax liabilities and applicability of relevant laws to the transactions in question.
|
