2019 (5) TMI 125 - AAAR - VAT and Sales Tax

Validity of reassessment order - stock transfer or sale? - HELD THAT - From the submissions of the appellant one thing is clear that the appellant has not disputed the manner in which the goods have moved from Tamil Nadu to Pondicherry and from Pondicherry to Tamil Nadu and other States. The appellant has admitted that same lorry was used. The Assessing Officer has rightly concluded that the appellant has circuitously transferred the goods to their already identified purchasers in various places in Tamil Nadu and other States via Pondicherry so as to evade payment of tax. The Assessing Officer has further rightly concluded that in the scheme of supplying the goods to customers in Tamil Nadu and other States, the intervention of the Pondicherry Branch is only as a conduit as evidenced by the transport records and the Stock Register maintained at Pondicherry. It is pertinent to note that the Assessing Officer took note of the fact that the appellant did not produce even a single purchase order placed by any customer on its Pondicherry Branch and held that the appellant s contention that Pondicherry Branch independently received orders and executed them is contrary to facts. We have no reason to disbelieve the statement made by the Assessing Officer that detailed examination of the stock transfers from Tamil Nadu to Pondicherry with reference to the stock book of Pondicherry revealed that in almost all the cases, the goods stock transferred from Tamil Nadu have been sold and dispatched in the same lot to the ultimate buyers in Tamil Nadu and other States - We also find no substance in the submission of the appellant that the Assessing Officer had disallowed the transactions pertaining to transfer of goods to Pondicherry on the basis of a single transaction. The appellant clearly attempted to avoid tax under the TNGST Act and under the CST Act due to Tamil Nadu. We are entirely in agreement with the Assessing Officer s view expressed in his well-reasoned orders. Unfortunately the Appellant Assistant Commissioner overlooked vital aspects and core issues of the matter and reversed the Assessing Officer s orders. Appeal dismissed.

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of reassessment orders.
2. Nature of transactions (inter-State sales vs. stock transfers).
3. Jurisdiction and scope of Assessing Authority's inquiry.
4. Applicability of Section 6-A of the CST Act.
5. Evidence and documentation supporting the transactions.
6. Impact of transportation and delivery methods on tax liability.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Reassessment Orders:
The reassessment orders were challenged on the grounds that the original assessments for the years 1995-96 and 1996-97 had accepted the transactions as branch transfers and granted exemptions under Section 6-A of the CST Act. The appellant argued that reassessment could only be initiated on grounds of fraud, collusion, misrepresentation, or willful suppression of facts, which were not present in this case. However, the reassessment was justified based on detailed inspections and evidence gathered by the Enforcement Officers, revealing that the transactions were inter-State sales disguised as stock transfers to evade tax.

2. Nature of Transactions (Inter-State Sales vs. Stock Transfers):
The core issue was whether the goods movement from Tamil Nadu to Pondicherry and then back to Tamil Nadu constituted inter-State sales or legitimate stock transfers. The Assessing Officer, upon examining transport documents, checkpost records, and the modus operandi, concluded that the goods were earmarked for delivery to specific buyers in Tamil Nadu at the time of dispatch from Chennai. The goods were transported in the same lorry without being unloaded at Pondicherry, indicating a pre-determined inter-State sale rather than a stock transfer.

3. Jurisdiction and Scope of Assessing Authority's Inquiry:
The appellant contended that the Assessing Authority's jurisdiction was limited to verifying the correctness of Form-F declarations. However, the Assessing Officer conducted a thorough inquiry, examining stock transfer invoices, lorry receipts, stock books, and sales invoices, leading to the conclusion that the transactions were inter-State sales. The inquiry was within the scope of Section 6-A(2) of the CST Act, which allows the Assessing Authority to verify the truthfulness of particulars in Form-F declarations.

4. Applicability of Section 6-A of the CST Act:
The appellant argued that the filing of Form-F declarations created a conclusive presumption that the transactions were stock transfers. However, the Assessing Officer's detailed inquiry revealed that the transactions were camouflaged as stock transfers to evade tax. The documents recovered showed that the goods were directly delivered to buyers in Tamil Nadu, and the Pondicherry branch acted merely as a conduit. This justified the reassessment and rejection of the Form-F declarations.

5. Evidence and Documentation Supporting the Transactions:
The Assessing Officer relied on various documents, including freight bills, consignment notes, stock transfer invoices, and sales invoices, to establish that the goods were moved from Chennai to the ultimate buyers in Tamil Nadu without being unloaded at Pondicherry. The evidence showed that the goods were transported in the same lorry, and the consignment notes bore consecutive serial numbers, indicating a single continuous journey. The appellant's failure to produce purchase orders placed by customers on the Pondicherry branch further supported the conclusion that the transactions were inter-State sales.

6. Impact of Transportation and Delivery Methods on Tax Liability:
The appellant argued that using the same lorry for transportation and selling goods on the same day did not constitute inter-State sales. However, the Assessing Officer and the Tribunal concluded that the transportation method and immediate sale upon arrival at Pondicherry indicated a pre-determined inter-State sale. The Tribunal's conclusion was in line with the Supreme Court's observations in English Electric Co. v. Deputy Commercial Tax Officers, where a conceivable link between the movement of goods and the buyer's contract established an inter-State sale.

Conclusion:
The appeals were dismissed, upholding the reassessment orders. The Tribunal's findings that the transactions were inter-State sales and not stock transfers were confirmed. The Assessing Officer's detailed inquiry and reliance on substantial evidence justified the reassessment and rejection of the appellant's claims. The appellant's arguments regarding the scope of the Assessing Authority's inquiry and the applicability of Section 6-A of the CST Act were rejected based on the facts and evidence presented.

← Previous Next →