9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (12) TMI 344X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s in pursuance of the said orders were supplied to the parties by road directly by the head office. The assessee had maintained a depot at Delhi. The said depot used to place orders with the head office at Ghaziabad which were received from customers at Delhi. The supplies in respect of these orders were directly made from the head office to customers. Bills at Ghaziabad and Delhi were prepared by one and the same person. There was difference in transport charges in respect of the goods supplied by the assessee to various customers. On these facts, the Sales Tax Officer held that the assessee was liable to pay Central sales tax. On first appeal, the Assistant Commissioner (judicial) allowed the appeal partly. On further appeals, both by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s was so occasioned shall be on that dealer and for this purpose he may furnish to the assessing authority, within the prescribed time or within such further time as that authority may, for sufficient cause, permit, a declaration, duly filled and signed by the principal officer of the other place of business, or his agent or principal, as the case may be, containing the prescribed particulars in the prescribed form obtained from the prescribed authority, along with the evidence of despatch of such goods." The scope of the section is borne out by the following Statement of Objects and Reasons, appended for the insertion of the said provision by the amending Act No. 61 of 1972 with effect from 1st April, 1973 "Central sales tax is not leviab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed office and the branch office do not possess separate juridical personalities. The case is that if the goods had been despatched by the head office to the branch office outside the State for sale in open market without reference of any order placed by the buyer, in such a case if the goods are purchased from such a branch office, then it is not a sale under which goods commence their movement from the head office. It is a sale where goods moved merely from the branch office to the buyers. In my opinion, the facts of the present case are squarely covered by the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd. [1985] 60 STC 301 1986 UPTC 105. In Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Swadeshi Metal Works [198 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Sales Tax v. Kunwar Ayurvedic Pharmacy 1981 STR 355 (All.) the ratio of the decision runs counter to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd. [1985] 60 STC 301; 1986 UPTC 105. Thus the authorities cited on behalf of the assessee are of no help to the assessee. In my judgment, after taking into consideration the provisions of section 6-A of the Central Sales Tax Act and in view of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd. [1985] 60 STC 301; 1986 UPTC 105 the impugned order of the Sales Tax Tribunal suffers from an erroneous approach of law regarding burden of proof inasmuch as it has on the facts of this case placed a wrong burden of proof on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
