2009 (10) TMI 871 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Whether the materials supplied by the petitioner to the Chief Engineer, Power and Electricity Department during the year 2008 shall not be subjected to assessment for payment of VAT? Held that - Liability of the petitioner is to be ascertained from the facts that the supply orders were placed at the registered office of the writ petitioner at Guwahati (Assam) and the goods were manufactured and supplied from the factory at Barapani (Meghalaya) to Aizawl. This is evident from annexure I, the invoice, annexed at with the affidavit of the respondents. Neither is there any averment in the affidavit of the respondents that the writ petitioner had any office in the State of Mizoram nor is there any evidence that the goods were actually purchased by the writ petitioner from any dealer in the State of Mizoram and then supplied it to the respondents to take a view that it was an intra-State sale or purchase. On the other hand, the facts of this case clearly show that it was out and out an inter-State transaction and the writ petitioner is not liable to pay VAT under MVAT Act, 2005. W.P. allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to show-cause notice under MVAT Act for assessment of VAT on materials supplied. Interpretation of section 40 of Mizoram VAT Act, 2005. Determination of inter-State sale or purchase under Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.

Analysis:
The writ petition challenged a show-cause notice issued under the Mizoram Value Added Tax Act, 2005, regarding the assessment of VAT on materials supplied to the Chief Engineer, Power and Electricity Department. The petitioner argued that all inter-State sales or purchases in the course of inter-State trade or commerce are exempted under section 40 of the Mizoram VAT Act, 2005. They contended that paying Central sales tax once exempts them from being taxed twice. The petitioner's position was that since the order was placed at their registered office in Assam and goods transported from their factory in Meghalaya to Mizoram, it constituted an inter-State transaction under the Central Sales Tax Act. They relied on judgments like Union of India v. K.G. Khosla and Co. Ltd. and State of Orissa v. K.B. Saha and Sons Industries Pvt. Ltd. In contrast, the respondents argued that the transaction was intra-State until goods were delivered in Mizoram, making the petitioner liable to pay VAT. They referenced the judgment in Tata Iron and Steel Co., Limited, Bombay v. S.R. Sarkar. The court examined the provisions of section 3 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, to determine the nature of the transaction.

The court noted that the supply orders were placed at the petitioner's registered office in Assam, and goods were manufactured and supplied from their factory in Meghalaya to Mizoram, indicating an inter-State transaction. The court emphasized that there was no evidence of the petitioner having an office in Mizoram or purchasing goods from a Mizoram dealer for intra-State sale. The court distinguished the case from TISCO [1960] 11 STC 655; [1961] 1 SCR 379, which was based on a different section of the CST Act. Consequently, the court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the show-cause notice issued under the MVAT Act, 2005.