9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (12) TMI 1233 - AT - VAT / Sales TaxLevy of central sales tax on movement of goods from the manufacturing unit of the appellant situated in the State of Rajasthan to its depots in the State of Bihar and the State of Jharkhand - inter-state supply of goods or inter-state stock transfers? - HELD THAT - A perusal of the facts of these four appeals and the facts of the fourteen appeals decided by the Tribunal on 21.10.2024 2024 (10) TMI 1124 - CESTAT NEW DELHI clearly show that they are similar. The Liquor Sourcing Policy framed by the State of Bihar and the Liquor Policy framed by the State of Jharkhand which came up for consideration in the decided appeals has also come up for consideration in these four appeals. The Master Agreement entered into between the appellant and the Corporation at Patna and the Master Agreement entered into between the appellant and the Corporation in Jharkhand are identical. Demand set aside - Appeal allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Demand of central sales tax on movement of goods from Rajasthan to Bihar and Jharkhand. 2. Classification of the movement as inter-state supply versus inter-state stock transfer. 3. Reliance on previous tribunal decisions and the applicability of the same to the present case. Detailed Analysis: 1. Demand of Central Sales Tax: The primary issue in these appeals is the demand for central sales tax on the movement of goods from the appellant's manufacturing unit in Rajasthan to its depots in Bihar and Jharkhand. The Rajasthan Tax Board had upheld the assessment orders for the years 2010-11 to 2013-14, treating the movement as arising out of inter-state supply rather than inter-state stock transfers as claimed by the appellant. 2. Classification of Movement: The appellant argued that the movement of goods was not occasioned by any prior contract of sale or agreement to sell, thus constituting inter-state stock transfers rather than sales. The Tribunal had previously set aside a similar order by the Rajasthan Tax Board in the case of M/s United Breweries Ltd. and others, where it was held that the movement of goods was not due to any sale agreement. The Tribunal found that the Master Agreement and Liquor Policy did not obligate the Corporation to procure any specified minimum quantities, and the movement of goods was based on estimation of market demand rather than a sale agreement. 3. Reliance on Previous Tribunal Decisions: The appellant's counsel highlighted that the Rajasthan Tax Board had relied on an earlier order which was subsequently set aside by the Tribunal. The Tribunal's decision on 21.10.2024 in similar cases involving M/s Carlsberg India Pvt. Ltd., M/s United Breweries Ltd., and M/s Mount Shivalik Industries Ltd., had concluded that the movement of goods was due to inter-state stock transfers. The Tribunal reiterated that the Master Agreement and the Liquor Policy did not constitute a sale agreement, and the movement of goods was not incidental to any sale agreement. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the order dated 20.09.2018 by the Rajasthan Tax Board, which was based on the earlier set-aside order, could not be sustained. The movement of goods from Rajasthan to Bihar and Jharkhand was not occasioned by any sale agreement, and thus, the demand for central sales tax was incorrect. The appeals were allowed, and the order by the Rajasthan Tax Board was set aside, affirming the classification of the movement as inter-state stock transfers.
|
