Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1990 (10) TMI 342

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... al, to be the local sale in Karnataka and not chargeable as inter-State sales by Tamil Nadu under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. T.C. (R) No. 74 of 1981 is against the order in T.M.P. No. 67 of 1980 preferred by the Revenue for enhancement of turnover relating to a turnover of Rs. 2,51,540 held by the Tribunal (concurring with the Appellate Assistant Commissioner) to be local sales in Karnataka, negativing the contention of the Revenue that they were inter-State sales assessable to tax under the Central Sales Tax Act by the State of Tamil Nadu. 3.. The question for consideration in T.C. (R) No. 75 of 1981 is whether the turnover in dispute, viz., Rs. 3,828 is exigible to tax as inter-State sales taxable by Tamil Nadu or local sales at K .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... produced the goods in the factory at Bangalore and sold them locally. In a few cases it could not produce the goods ordered by its buyers, in the factory at Bangalore and so placed orders for the said goods to its Madras office. The Madras office, in turn, produced the goods so ordered by the branch office at Bangalore and transferred them to that branch to enable it to execute the orders from its buyers. On receipt of the goods from the head office the branch included them in its stocks and sold them to its buyers. So, the Madras office has no connection with the ultimate buyers from the Bangalore branch. The abovesaid turnover of Rs. 2,51,540 is one such case where the buyer is one Rajam Transport, Bangalore, and the contract between the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rested with the Bangalore branch office till the goods are delivered to the buyer. All the charges for transferring the goods from Madras to the branch office at Bangalore were met by the assessee and they were not passed on to the buyer. The affidavit from the abovesaid buyer Sri Rajam Transport was also filed stating that the said buyer placed orders only with the branch office at Bangalore and that he took delivery only from the office at Bangalore. 5.. In the above circumstances, both the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal have held concurrently that the abovesaid turnover is not exigible to tax by the State of Tamil Nadu as inter-State sale and the sale in question was only a local sale in Karnataka. 6.. The learned .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... herein had its registered office at Calcutta and branches at Bombay and other places. It had its main factory at Madras. A Bombay buyer wrote to the Bombay branch of the appellant, asking for lowest quotation of the goods. The Bombay branch wrote to the Madras branch, giving all the specifications and stating that the goods were for the Bombay buyer. The Madras branch, in reply referred to the order of the Bombay buyer, giving the required particulars and mentioned that the price was f.o.r. Madras. The Bombay branch, thereafter gave these particulars that the goods would be manufactured at the Madras factory. The Bombay buyer placed an order with the Bombay branch, accepting all the terms and conditions. The Bombay branch placed an indepe .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... goods from Madras to Bombay. The sale was, therefore, liable to be taxed under section 3(a) of the Central Act. 10.. It would be clear that there are very many distinguishing features between the facts in the present case and the facts in the abovesaid case before the Supreme Court. In the present case, first of all, the contract between the buyer and the Bangalore branch did not contemplate any movement of goods from Tamil Nadu to Karnataka.. It shows only delivery at Bangalore and payment of local sales tax of Karnataka State and there is no mention therein about the manufacture of the goods at Madras. Further, the goods were not directly delivered to the buyer, but only sent to the branch office at Bangalore and included in the stock .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates