9911796707
TMI Blog1972 (2) TMI 84X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mitted to the factory. The factory packed the goods and sent the goods to the head office where they were delivered to the customers on payment of price. Admittedly, the sale took place at Delhi. The only question is whether these sales are liable to Central sales tax under section 3(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The company's case was that the sales took place after the goods reached Delhi. Therefore, the sales were between the head office at Delhi and the customers in Delhi. The company took the stand that the head office was not bound to sell the goods ordered by a prospective purchaser to him and it had the absolute discretion to sell the same to anyone else. The Assessing Authority did not accept the stand taken by the assessee and held that the goods supplied to customers after the orders have been booked by the Delhi head office from Faridabad amounted to inter-State sales. The reasons which prevailed with the Assessing Authority may now be stated in its own words: "There is no written statement or contract for sale and the assessee could not prove that the contract is conditional except by producing affidavits of the customers to the effect that mostly good ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be a regular stock register showing the position of stock at different times but all this kind of evidence is wanting in the present case." The assessee then preferred a petition for revision to the Excise and Taxation Commissioner. That too failed. The Revisional Authority found the following facts and circumstances: "(i) just before the sales in question goods used to be supplied from Faridabad against 'C' forms which clearly indicates that the parties agreed to buy and sell goods from Faridabad even though the agreement took place at Delhi. (ii) There is no godown in the so-called head office at Delhi. There is just a miani where a table and some chairs appear to have been placed. Goods have been sent direct to the purchasers in the truck of the company and delivery given to them. To a specific question put to the learned counsel for the petitioner during arguments, it was stated that the goods were not unloaded from the truck but that the buyer used to be informed and he would take the delivery. (iii) The statement of Shri Parkash Singh, P.A. to the Permanent Director of the company, is quite revealing and the extract quoted below in fact constitutes the crux of the cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... made nor any entries made regarding the goods received and sold in the accounts maintained in the head office. The appellant-firm did not manufacture or deal in any other commodity. The orders of the buyers in Delhi were conclusively for goods produced at Faridabad. These orders were placed sometimes orally and sometimes in writing. On receipt of instructions from the head office, the factory packed and labelled these goods customerwise. The consignments were accounted for in the factory on the basis during transportation through the factory gates. According to the statement of Shri Parkash Singh, P. A. to the Permanent Director of the company, the entire accounts are maintained at Faridabad and any payments received by the head office in Delhi are billed to the factory in due course. Against this, the appellants can produce 4 affidavits for the year 1961-62 and statements of two other executives of the firm claiming that the sales in Delhi were in pursuance of contract made by the head office with the customers direct without any connection with the manufacturing process and sales organisation of the factory at Faridabad. The turnover involved is considerable and these few stateme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e qua the State of Haryana." Mr. Bhagirath Dass, the learned counsel for the assessee, contends that there was no contract of sale in pursuance of which the goods moved from Faridabad to Delhi. His contention is that offers were made at Delhi and, in view of those offers, the goods moved from Faridabad to Delhi and it is thereafter that the sale was effected. His contention, broadly speaking, is that offers do not amount to sales. The contention is only correct in part. We are really concerned with the interpretation of section 3(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, which is in the following terms: "3. A sale or purchase of goods shall be deemed to take place in the course of inter-State trade or commerce if the sale or purchase- (a) occasions the movement of goods from one State to another; or (b)............................ Explanation 1.................... Explanation 2.................." We are of the view that on the facts found the requirements of section 3(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act are satisfied. The matter is not res integra and is, in fact, concluded by the Bench decision of this Court in Messrs. Prem Payari Aggarwal v. Punjab State[1966] 18 S.T.C. 15 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
