9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (6) TMI 728 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxWhether the authorities concerned including the Appellate Tribunal were not right in holding that the petitioner had not made out a case within the provisions of section 5A of the KST Act by holding that in the instant case there was no sale of the manufactured goods within the State and that there was only stock transfer which is not a sale? Held that - The transaction in question namely mere stock transfer of goods by the petitioner is not a sale within the meaning of the KST Act. Hence plaintiff No. 1 is answered against the petitioner. It is a transfer to branch offices in different companies of the country and hence the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit under section 5A of the Act. The revision petition is dismissed by answering the question of law raised in this revision petition in favour of the Revenue and against the petitioner.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the transaction in question is a sale or a mere stock transfer. 2. Whether under section 5A of the KST Act, any industrial input used to manufacture goods inside the State must also be sold within the State to be eligible for reimbursement. 3. Whether the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal correctly interpreted section 5A in light of previous case law, particularly the case of Assessing Authority-cum-Excise and Taxation Officer v. East India Cotton Mfg. Co. Ltd. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Whether the transaction in question is a sale or a mere stock transfer. The court examined the definition of "sale" under section 2(1)(t) of the KST Act, which requires a transfer of property in goods by one person to another for valuable consideration. The court held that a stock transfer does not meet this definition, as it involves transferring goods to different branches of the same company without any transfer of ownership or valuable consideration. Therefore, the stock transfer in question does not qualify as a sale under the KST Act. Issue 2: Whether under section 5A of the KST Act, any industrial input used to manufacture goods inside the State must also be sold within the State to be eligible for reimbursement. The court analyzed section 5A of the KST Act, which allows for reimbursement of tax on industrial inputs used in manufacturing goods inside the State for sale. The court referred to previous judgments, including Sipani Fibres v. State of Karnataka and Hotel Balaji v. State of Andhra Pradesh, to conclude that both the manufacture and sale of goods must occur within the State for the benefit of reimbursement under section 5A. The court clarified that merely manufacturing goods in the State without selling them within the State does not meet the criteria for reimbursement. Issue 3: Whether the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal correctly interpreted section 5A in light of previous case law, particularly the case of Assessing Authority-cum-Excise and Taxation Officer v. East India Cotton Mfg. Co. Ltd. The court reviewed the Tribunal's interpretation of section 5A and found that it was consistent with the legal principles established by higher courts. The court noted that the Tribunal correctly applied the ratio from previous judgments, including the Supreme Court's decision in Hotel Balaji, which emphasized that the sale of manufactured goods must occur within the State to qualify for reimbursement under section 5A. The court also clarified that the decision in East India Cotton Mfg. Co. Ltd. was not applicable to the present case, as it dealt with different factual circumstances. Conclusion: The court dismissed the revision petition, holding that the stock transfer of goods by the petitioner does not qualify as a sale under the KST Act. Consequently, the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of reimbursement under section 5A of the Act. The court also clarified that for the benefit of section 5A, both the manufacture and sale of goods must occur within the State, aligning with the Supreme Court's decisions in Hotel Balaji and Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Pvt. Ltd. The court ruled in favor of the Revenue and against the petitioner.
|
