9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2009 (2) TMI 750 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxWhether there is unexplained delay and laches on the part of the petitioner? Whether the transaction is inter-State sale? Held that - Considering the factual position of filing the writ petition belatedly we are of the view that the petitioner has not explained or shown sufficient cause for the delay in filing the above writ petition. The delay in the present case is nearly 20 months. Hence the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of unexplained delay and laches. There is no material available to show that the goods are meant to be in Sivakasi. It is not the contention of the petitioner that the goods were not moved from Tamil Nadu to Kerala. Stoppage and conversion do not make the transaction a local sale. After taking into consideration the facts involved we are of the view that the transaction involved is only an inter-State sale. On this ground also we are of the view that there is no merit in the writ petition and same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether there is unexplained delay and laches on the part of the petitioner? 2. Whether the transaction is an inter-State sale? Detailed Analysis: 1. Unexplained Delay and Laches: The petitioner filed the writ petition to quash the order of the Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal dated March 28, 2003. The order was received by the petitioner on April 7, 2003, but the writ petition was filed only on January 4, 2005, after a delay of 20 months. The court noted that at each stage, there was an enormous delay, with no proper explanation provided for the delay from January 22, 2004, to January 4, 2005. The court cited the Supreme Court's principle that unexplained delay and laches are adequate grounds for refusing a writ, as seen in the cases of *City and Industrial Development Corporation v. Dosu Aardeshir Bhiwandiwala* and *Singh Enterprises v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur*. The court concluded that the petitioner had not shown sufficient cause for the delay, rendering the writ petition liable to be dismissed on the grounds of unexplained delay and laches. 2. Inter-State Sale: The second issue was whether the transaction was an inter-State sale under Section 3(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The court examined several Supreme Court judgments to interpret Section 3(a), which states that a sale is an inter-State sale if it occasions the movement of goods from one State to another. The court referred to multiple judgments, including: - *South India Viscose Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu*: Emphasized that the movement of goods pursuant to a contract of sale qualifies as an inter-State sale. - *Union of India v. K.G. Khosla and Co. Ltd.*: Highlighted that the movement of goods must be an incident of the contract of sale. - *Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P., Lucknow v. Suresh Chand Jain*: Stressed that transportation must be occasioned by the contract of sale. - *State of Tamil Nadu v. Tvl. Hercules Rubber Co.*: Affirmed that the movement of goods due to a contract of sale constitutes an inter-State sale. - *State of Orissa v. K.B. Saha and Sons Industries Pvt. Ltd.*: Clarified that the sale and movement of goods must be inseparably connected. - *A & G Projects and Technologies Ltd. v. State of Karnataka*: Explained that tax is levied on the sale of goods, and the movement is material for determining whether the sale is inter-State or intra-State. In the present case, the court found that the goods were moved from Tamil Nadu to Kerala at the buyer's instruction, with a stoppage and conversion at Sivakasi. The movement of goods was pursuant to a contract, and the goods were not meant to be sold in the open market in Sivakasi. The court held that the stoppage and conversion did not alter the character of the transaction, which remained an inter-State sale. The court concluded that the transaction was an inter-State sale under Section 3(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, and dismissed the writ petition on this ground as well. Conclusion: The writ petition was dismissed on both grounds of unexplained delay and laches, and on the merits, as the transaction was deemed an inter-State sale. Consequently, the connected W.P.M.P. No. 5643 of 2005 was also dismissed.
|
