2020 (8) TMI 779 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Inter-state sale or not - fulfilment of conditions of Section 3 and 6(2) of Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 or not - HELD THAT - These writ petitions are disposed with the direction to the 2nd respondent to pass appropriate orders considering the above clarification dated 28.10.2016 of the Additional Chief Secretary/Commissioner of Commercial Taxes within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of Section 3 of CST Act for determining interstate sales; Validity of denial of E1 declaration for transit sales; Compliance with the clarification dated 28.10.2016 by Additional Chief Secretary/Commissioner of Commercial Taxes.

Interpretation of Section 3 of CST Act:
The judgment clarifies that for a sale to be considered interstate under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, it is essential that the sale occasions the movement of goods from one state to another. The nature of interstate sales is determined by the interstate movement of goods and the link between such movement and the contract of sales. The location of the buyer and seller is not the main criteria; rather, it is the interstate movement of goods that is crucial. The judgment highlights that as long as there is a connection between the agreement of sales and the interstate movement of goods, even local dealers within the state can effect interstate sales. Conversely, if there is no interstate movement of goods in connection with the sale, even if the buyer and seller are in different states, the sale would not qualify as interstate.

Validity of denial of E1 declaration for transit sales:
The judgment references a case law where the Madras High Court held that two local dealers can effect transit sales in the course of interstate movement of goods by transferring documents of title. The objections raised against exemption on such sales were not accepted, and the Department dropped the connected paras based on the High Court judgment. The assessing authorities in Trichy Division were found to be incorrect in denying interstate sales and E1 declaration to ancillary units of BHEL for transit sales. The judgment instructs all assessing authorities to allow such interstate sales and issue E1 certificates if the conditions under Section 3 and 6(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 are met.

Compliance with the clarification dated 28.10.2016:
The judgment directs the 2nd respondent to pass appropriate orders within three months from the date of receipt of the order, considering the clarification dated 28.10.2016 by the Additional Chief Secretary/Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. The petitioner is given thirty days to file objections or representations, which the 2nd respondent must consider and decide upon within the specified three-month period after providing an opportunity for a hearing. The judgment concludes by closing the connected Miscellaneous Petitions without any costs.