2019 (1) TMI 895 - AAAR - VAT and Sales Tax

Grant of stay - Levy of Sales Tax - branch transfer - goods dispatched from the appellants integrated Steel Plant at Rourkela to its branches - Time Bound Supply Scheme - inter-state sales or not? - no C Forms were produced - Held that - The total demand is ₹ 108,70,20,638.00. According to the contesting respondent the appellant has deposited ₹ 513,035,699.00 and balance tax due is ₹ 573,984,939.00 According to the appellant it has deposited ₹ 51,27,04,438.00 and the balance tax due is ₹ 57,43,16,200.00. The total local taxes paid by the appellant are stated to be ₹ 452,11,04,863.00. If this amount is added to amount deposited by the appellant as per various Court orders, the amount so arrived at exceeds the impugned demand - Counsel for the State of Orissa submitted that she has no instructions as to how much local sales tax the appellant has paid. It is not possible to accept this submission. The State of Orissa ought to have gathered these details. It was given time to take instructions on the tables submitted by the appellant. It has failed to do so. In such circumstances, I accept the statement made by Counsel for the appellant in this behalf which is supported by the tables submitted by him. The substantial amount has been deposited by the appellant. This is borne out by the tables submitted by the appellant. Even as per the table submitted by the State of Orissa, the appellant has deposited substantial amount. Payment made towards local sale taxes is also substantial. It bears repetition to state that if that payment is taken into consideration, the appellant has deposited more than the amounts covered by the impugned demands. For the Assessment Year 1992-1993, the Supreme Court had granted protection to the appellant by its order dated 16.03.1998 - this is a fit case where the impugned judgment and order needs to be stayed during the pendency of the instant appeals - application disposed off.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Stay applications for order dated 29.06.2018 passed by the Orissa Sales Tax Tribunal.
2. Classification of goods dispatched from integrated Steel Plant as inter-state sales.
3. Dismissal of appeals challenging Tribunal's order.
4. Calculation of impugned demands and payments made by the appellant.
5. Disagreement on amounts paid and balance tax due.
6. Stay application decision during the pendency of appeals.

Analysis:
1. The Appellate Authority admitted the appeals for stay applications concerning the order passed by the Orissa Sales Tax Tribunal on 29.06.2018. Even though the appeals relate to different assessment years, the issues involved are the same, allowing for a common order to dispose of the stay applications.

2. The Tribunal classified goods dispatched from the appellant's integrated Steel Plant as inter-state sales under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, subjecting them to taxation as sales in the course of inter-state trade. The appellants challenged this classification, leading to the current appeals.

3. Initially disposed of by the Tribunal in separate orders, the appeals were remanded to the Appellate Authority for fresh assessment. However, the Tribunal, through the impugned order, dismissed the appeals, prompting the appellants' grievance and subsequent appeals.

4. Detailed calculations were presented for each appeal year, highlighting the impugned demands, potential reductions with 'C' Forms, amounts paid pursuant to court orders, and local taxes paid by the appellant's branches. These figures were crucial in determining the balance tax due and assessing the appellant's financial obligations.

5. Disagreement arose regarding the amounts paid by the appellant and the balance tax due. The State of Orissa contested the appellant's figures, claiming a higher balance tax due. However, the Appellate Authority scrutinized the submissions and accepted the appellant's statements, noting substantial payments made and exceeding the impugned demands when considering local sales taxes.

6. Considering the circumstances and the substantial amounts already deposited by the appellant, the Appellate Authority granted a stay on the impugned judgment and order during the appeals' pendency. The stay encompassed specific demands and emphasized that the decision did not reflect final opinions on the case's merits.

This detailed analysis encapsulates the key aspects of the legal judgment, from the issues involved to the decision on the stay applications, providing a comprehensive understanding of the case's intricacies and the Appellate Authority's ruling.