2007 (8) TMI 799 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether there could be any subsequent sale effected by the respondent as per explanation 1 appended to Section 3(b) of the CST Act in furtherance to the ultimate buyer - KPTCL before the commencement of the movement of the goods from another State to Karnataka.
2. Whether the three independent simultaneous transactions of sale effected before the commencement of the movement of goods could be regarded as covered under Section 3(a) of CST Act and not under Section 3(b) of CST Act.
3. Whether the State of Karnataka which has issued "C" forms to the registered dealer is the "Appropriate State" to levy C.S.T. as per the proviso appended to Section 9(1) of the CST Act.
4. Whether the Tribunal is right in holding the levy of tax can be attracted in the State of Karnataka only when there is a local sale or an inter-State sale resulting in the movement of goods from the respondent to the KPTCL in the course of inter-State trade.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Subsequent Sale under Section 3(b) of CST Act:
The court examined whether a subsequent sale could be effected by the respondent before the commencement of the movement of goods from another State to Karnataka. The respondent claimed that the supply of goods to KPTCL was a transit sale covered under Sections 3(b) and 6(2) of the CST Act. However, the Assessing Authority held that the sale was an inter-State sale under Section 3(a) of the CST Act, as the sale was completed when the goods were appropriated before the commencement of movement.

2. Simultaneous Transactions under Section 3(a) or 3(b) of CST Act:
The court considered whether the three independent simultaneous transactions of sale effected before the commencement of movement of goods could be covered under Section 3(a) of the CST Act. The Assessing Authority concluded that the sale of goods was completed before the movement began, thus falling under Section 3(a) rather than Section 3(b). This conclusion was based on the terms of the contract and the lorry receipts indicating that the goods were appropriated to KPTCL before their movement.

3. Appropriate State for Levy of CST:
The court examined whether Karnataka, which issued "C" forms to the registered dealer, was the "Appropriate State" to levy CST as per the proviso to Section 9(1) of the CST Act. The Assessing Authority and the First Appellate Authority held that Karnataka was the appropriate state to levy CST, as the sale of goods was completed in Karnataka, making it the state from which the movement of goods commenced.

4. Levy of Tax in Karnataka:
The court considered whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the levy of tax could only be attracted in Karnataka when there was a local or inter-State sale resulting in the movement of goods from the respondent to KPTCL. The Tribunal's decision was set aside, as the court found that the sale fell under Section 3(a) of the CST Act, making Karnataka the appropriate state to levy the tax.

Conclusion:
The court allowed the revision petition, answering the questions of law in favor of the Revenue. It was held that the sale of goods to KPTCL was an inter-State sale under Section 3(a) of the CST Act, and Karnataka was the appropriate state to levy CST. The Tribunal's judgment was set aside, and the orders of the First Appellate Authority were restored.