9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2007 (8) TMI 684 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxTax levy on Turnover - Whether there could be any subsequent sale effected by the respondent as per Explanation 1 appended to section 3(b) of the CST Act in furtherance to the ultimate buyer KPTCL before the commencement of the movement of the goods from other State to the State of Karnataka? Whether the State of Karnataka which has issued C forms to the registered dealer is the appropriate State to levy CST as per the proviso appended to section 9(1) of the CST Act? Held that - Factual aspect is considered by the assessing authority with reference to undisputed fact of delivery of goods of capacitor banks to the KPTCL in the State of Karnataka on the basis of the terms and conditions of the contract entered into with the respondent a registered dealer by the above Corporation and delivered goods to the Corporation which was manufactured as per the specification of the KPTCL at Karnataka State. Therefore the provisions of section 9(1) proviso of the CST Act are attracted but not section 6(2) of the CST Act to the case on hand. Therefore assessing authority and first appellate authority have rightly held that the Karnataka State is the appropriate State entitled under the provisions of the CST Act for recovery of the sales tax in respect of the goods sold to the KPTCL by the registered dealer. In view of the finding of fact recorded by the assessing authority which was concurred by the appellate authority and for the reasons stated supra by us and the reliance placed by the learned AGA on the decisions of the Supreme Court Andhra Pradesh High Court Gujarat High Court Calcutta High Court and Madras High Court in the above cases we answer the questions of law in favour of the Revenue and against the respondent.
Issues Involved:
1. Subsequent sale under Explanation 1 to Section 3(b) of the CST Act. 2. Classification of transactions under Section 3(a) or 3(b) of the CST Act. 3. Determination of the "appropriate State" for levying CST as per the proviso to Section 9(1) of the CST Act. 4. Tribunal's stance on tax levy in Karnataka for local or inter-State sales. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Subsequent Sale under Explanation 1 to Section 3(b) of the CST Act: The court examined whether the respondent's supply of goods to KPTCL could be considered a subsequent sale under Explanation 1 to Section 3(b) of the CST Act before the commencement of the movement of goods from another state to Karnataka. The respondent claimed the sale was a transit sale covered under Sections 3(b) and 6(2) of the CST Act. However, the assessing authority determined that the sale was completed when the goods were appropriated to the KPTCL before the movement commenced, making it an inter-State sale under Section 3(a) of the CST Act. This finding was supported by the lorry receipts and the terms of the contract, indicating that the sale occurred before the goods moved from Chennai to Karnataka. 2. Classification of Transactions under Section 3(a) or 3(b) of the CST Act: The court addressed whether the three independent simultaneous transactions of sale effected before the commencement of the movement of goods could be classified under Section 3(a) instead of Section 3(b) of the CST Act. The assessing authority and the first appellate authority concluded that the sale was an inter-State sale under Section 3(a) due to the appropriation of goods before their movement. This decision was supported by the Supreme Court's interpretation in Tata Iron and Steel Co. Limited v. Sarkar, which clarified that sales where property in goods passes before the movement commences fall under Section 3(a). 3. Determination of the "Appropriate State" for Levying CST: The court considered whether Karnataka, which issued "C" forms to the registered dealer, was the appropriate state to levy CST as per the proviso to Section 9(1) of the CST Act. The assessing authority and the first appellate authority held that Karnataka was the appropriate state to levy CST on the respondent's total turnover. This conclusion was based on the proviso to Section 9(1), which specifies that the state where the registered dealer obtained or could have obtained the "C" form is the appropriate state to levy tax. The court upheld this finding, emphasizing that the goods were delivered to KPTCL in Karnataka based on the contract terms. 4. Tribunal's Stance on Tax Levy in Karnataka: The court reviewed the Tribunal's decision, which held that tax could only be levied in Karnataka if there was a local sale or an inter-State sale resulting in the movement of goods from the respondent to KPTCL in the course of inter-State trade. The Tribunal's judgment was set aside by the court, which found that the Tribunal erred in not considering the relevant findings of the assessing authority. The court reiterated that the sale was an inter-State sale under Section 3(a) of the CST Act, and Karnataka was the appropriate state to levy CST. Conclusion: The court concluded that the sale of goods to KPTCL was an inter-State sale under Section 3(a) of the CST Act, and Karnataka was the appropriate state to levy CST. The Tribunal's judgment was set aside, and the revision petition was allowed in favor of the Revenue. The court's decision was based on a thorough examination of the contract terms, lorry receipts, and relevant legal precedents.
|
