2020 (5) TMI 608 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Detention of goods - sale of goods during inter-state movement - Jurisdiction of state - immediate release of the detained lorry and the consignment of goods on the ground that the transaction was covered by E1 sales invoice and therefore the transaction outside the purview of the respondents under Tamil Nadu Value Added Act, 2006 - HELD THAT - If at all, the Check Post authorities at Maharashtra border had found that the goods were not charged to tax on such inter-state sale, they would have detained the goods and the lorry there. In fact, they would have collected appropriate central sales tax before the goods left the Maharastra border under the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 - As such, no taxable event had taken place within the State of Tamil Nadu. There was also no scope for invoking Section 72 of the TNVAT Act, 2006 under the circumstances - the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there was an E-1 transaction cannot be countenanced in the facts of the present case. Only such transaction would be exempted under section 6 (2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. This is on the underlying principle under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 that subsequent sale of goods in the course of interstate trade and commerce are not taxed twice. Petition allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to impugned proceedings demanding tax and compounding fees.
Detention of goods in transit leading to issuance of draft compounding notices.
Authority of the 1st respondent to detain goods and impose fees under TNVAT Act.
Validity of invoking Section 72 of TNVAT Act for the transactions.
Interpretation of E1 transaction and its applicability in the case.
Applicability of Central Sales Tax Act on inter-state transactions.
Exemption under Section 6(2) of CST Act for subsequent sales during transit.
Analysis:
The petitioner challenged three impugned proceedings demanding tax at 5% and compounding fees twice the duty proposed. The petitioner received purchase orders and purchased cotton for supply to customers. The goods were detained in transit, leading to draft compounding notices being issued. The petitioner contended that the 1st respondent lacked authority to detain goods or demand fees under TNVAT Act, as only the 2nd respondent could levy tax. The 1st respondent argued that the petitioner had an alternate remedy under Section 54 of TNVAT Act and was given an opportunity to compound the offense.

The High Court analyzed the situation and found that no taxable event occurred in Tamil Nadu as the goods originated from outside the state. The Court noted that the 1st respondent had no authority to tax such transactions, and Section 72 of TNVAT Act was inapplicable. The Court also discussed the concept of E1 transactions and clarified that they occur after goods are in possession of the transporter for supply to buyers outside the state. The Central Sales Tax Act imposes tax at the first point of sale and exempts subsequent sales during interstate movement.

Referring to the A & G Projects and Technologies Ltd case, the Court highlighted that subsequent sales during transit are exempt under Section 6(2) of CST Act if conditions are met. The Court emphasized that the principle is to avoid double taxation on interstate sales. Consequently, the Court allowed the writ petitions, quashed the impugned orders, and closed the connected miscellaneous petitions without costs.