2009 (6) TMI 930 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues: Disallowance of exemption under section 6(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 for the sale of a boiler to an industry in Kerala.

Analysis:
The revision filed by the assessee raised the question of disallowance of exemption claimed under section 6(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 for the sale of a boiler to an industry in Kerala. The assessing officer rejected the petitioner's claim of the sale being arranged in transit and made through the endorsement of title to goods because the LR contained the ultimate consumer's name and address. This rejection was upheld in two levels of appeals. The counsel for the petitioner argued that the appearance of the consumer's address or identification by the original consignor does not justify local assessment in Kerala. However, the court did not accept this contention as the E1 form issued from the consignor indicated an inter-State sale between the consignor and the petitioner. The subsequent sale between the petitioner and the buyer was found to be a pre-arranged one, with the petitioner acting as an intermediary between the manufacturer and the ultimate consumer. The court determined that the sale of the equipment, being made to order for the customer and covered by guarantee and warranty, did not qualify as a sale of goods in transit. As there was no proof of a second inter-State sale under section 6(2), the transaction was assessed as a local sale under the KGST, leading to the dismissal of the ST Rev.

In conclusion, the judgment focused on the interpretation of the transactions involving the sale of a boiler to an industry in Kerala under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The court analyzed the nature of the sales, the role of the petitioner as an intermediary, and the applicability of exemptions under section 6(2) in the context of the specific facts of the case. By examining the documentation, including the E1 form and the LR, the court determined the nature of the transactions and ultimately concluded that the sale should be assessed as a local sale under the KGST due to the absence of evidence supporting a second inter-State sale under section 6(2).