9911796707
TMI Blog1975 (12) TMI 156X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dingly, proposed to include this disputed turnover in the assessment and issued a preassessment notice. While submitting the objections, the assessee claimed exemption under section 3(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, on the ground that the sale was effected by transfer of documents of title during the movement of the goods from one State to another. The assessing officer rejected this contention and held that they are all local sales and, accordingly, included the disputed turnover in the assessment. Before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, it appears that the petitioner claimed exemption as an inter-State sale under section 3(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act on the ground that in fact the goods moved from one State to another in p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and regulations of the East India Cotton Association Limited, Bombay. The terms and conditions also provided that the contract was subject to Bombay jurisdiction and the dispute regarding quality is to be determined in arbitration and appeal as per the rules and regulations of the East India Cotton Association Limited. The terms and conditions appear to be a printed form which is applicable either for despatch through railway wagon or steamer. It is seen from the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner that, actually, the goods covered by the disputed turnover were despatched from places outside the State of Tamil Nadu. On these facts, the learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the movement of the goods was occasioned by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to move from out of State places, it cannot be held that the transaction falls under section 3(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act. The decision in Jayajothi and Company v. State of Madras[1969] 23 S.T.C. 321., relied on by the learned counsel, was based on the finding that the terms of the contract showed that the supply of the goods was to be made by movement of the goods from out of State into this State. The alternative argument of the learned counsel that, in any case, it might fall under section 3(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act is also not acceptable. The assessee had not produced the railway receipt or any other evidence to show that the sale was by transfer of documents of title when the goods were in movement. There is also no evi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
