2011 (12) TMI 466 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Stock transfer of semifabricated tin container - whether be treated as inter-State transaction? - Held that - The order passed by the Tribunal imposing Central sales tax on the assessee in this case is justified in the facts and circumstances of the case because the items that the assessee were transferring from Sahibabad to Murthal were not the semi finished items but rather it were the final and finished products and it could not be said that the goods have been sent to the second unit in semi finished state. In view of the above, the order passed by the Tribunal is confirmed. Revision dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Central sales tax on stock transfer of semi-fabricated tin containers.
2. Determining the completion of tin containers and the classification of inter-State sales.
3. Application of U.P. Trade Tax Rules and Central Sales Tax Act in stock transfers.
4. Consideration of written arguments and judgments in the decision-making process.
5. Examination of each point in stock transfer cases as per legal precedents.
6. Assessment of whether stock transfer of semi-fabricated tin container constitutes inter-State sale.

Issue 1:
The case involved a dispute regarding the imposition of Central sales tax on the assessee for transferring semi-fabricated tin containers from Sahibabad to Murthal. The Tribunal considered whether the items transferred were semi-finished or final products. The Tribunal concluded that the transferred items were final and finished products, not semi-finished, justifying the imposition of Central sales tax. The court upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing that the goods were not sent in a semi-finished state.

Issue 2:
The crucial question was whether the completion of tin containers, specifically the fitting of bottom and top lid assemblies, occurred at Murthal, making the sale an inter-State transaction. The Tribunal and the court analyzed the manufacturing process, asserting that the containers were fully finished at Murthal, with only the filling and bottom fixing remaining, which was done by another manufacturer. This led to the confirmation of Central sales tax on the assessee.

Issue 3:
The application of the second proviso of rule 41(7) of the U.P. Trade Tax Rules and section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act was critical in determining the nature of the stock transfer. The Tribunal's decision to treat the transfer of semi-fabricated tin containers as inter-State transactions was upheld based on the legal provisions and previous court decisions.

Issue 4:
The contention raised by the assessee regarding the Tribunal's oversight of written arguments and judgments was addressed. The court noted that the Tribunal had considered the nature of the transferred goods and the completion status, leading to the imposition of Central sales tax. The Tribunal's decision was deemed justified despite the arguments presented by the assessee.

Issue 5:
The requirement to examine each point in stock transfer cases, as per legal precedents like the Tata Engineering case, was highlighted. The court emphasized the importance of a thorough examination of all aspects before concluding on the nature of the transaction. The Tribunal's decision to impose Central sales tax was upheld based on this legal principle.

Issue 6:
The final issue revolved around the assessment of whether the stock transfer of semi-fabricated tin containers constituted inter-State sales. The court affirmed the Tribunal's decision, stating that the transferred items were final products and not semi-finished, justifying the imposition of Central sales tax. The revision was dismissed, upholding the Tribunal's order.