9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (2) TMI 393X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mbay, carries on the business of manufacture and sale of motor vehicle chassis. The assessee often gets orders from its customers for supply of complete buses of particular specifications. The assessee does not construct bus bodies. On receipt of such orders for supply of complete buses, it gets bus bodies constructed by outside parties on the chassis provided by it. Such bus bodies are purchased by the assessee against declaration furnished in form No. 14 as prescribed under section 12(a) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 ("the Act"), without paying any tax on the sales of bus bodies by the manufacturer or supplier of bus bodies to the assessee. During the period April 1, 1968 to March 31, 1969, the assessee purchased from one M/s. Ruby Coach Builders Pvt. Ltd. ("Ruby Coach Builders") bus bodies worth Rs. 9,16,805 without payment of any sales tax thereon by furnishing declarations in form No. 14 prescribed under the Bombay Sales Tax Rules, 1959 ("the Rules"). 3.. The assessee had received an order from one M/s. Mlsr Car Trading Company of Egypt for supply of Mercedes Benz diesel engine complete bus with aluminium superstructure and/or of steel body with 54 passenger seats of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessee is that these bus bodies were in fact sold by the assessee in execution of the order from the purchaser in Egypt and hence there was no violation of the conditions of form No. 14 in the instant case. According to the learned counsel, the Sales Tax Officer was not correct in holding that there was violation of the conditions of form No. 14, because the assessee had sold two commodities, viz., the chassis and the bus bodies, without doing anything thereto. It was submitted that the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal fell into error in holding that the assessee sold complete buses and not chassis and bus bodies. According to the learned counsel, the assessee had purchased the bus bodies from Ruby Coach Builders which were fitted on the chassis belonging to it and supplied the same in the same form in which they were received from the body builders to its customers in Egypt. His submission is that the assessee had sold the very same goods which it had purchased on the strength of the declaration in form No. 14 without making any change whatsoever and hence there is no violation of the conditions of form No. 14. Reliance is placed in support ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bodies. The sole question for determination, therefore, is whether the assessee resold the bus bodies purchased by it under declaration in form 14 or it sold complete bus, which was different and distinct commercial commodity. 9.. For a proper appreciation of the controversy, it is expedient to peruse section 14 of the Act and form 14 of the Rules. Section 14 makes a dealer liable to purchase tax for contravention of the terms of the certificate. This section, so far as relevant, as it stood at the material time, read as follows: "Section 14. Liability to purchase tax for contravention of terms of certificate."(1) Where any dealer or commission agent has purchased any taxable goods under a certificate given by him under section 11 or 12 and contrary to such certificate, the goods are used for another purpose, or are not resold or despatched in the manner and within the period certified, then such dealer or commission agent shall be liable to pay purchase tax on the purchase price of the goods purchased, under such certificate ; and accordingly he shall include the purchase price thereof, in his turnover of purchases in his return under section 32 which he is to furnish next the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eight "Mercedes Benz diesel complete buses". The description of the goods to be supplied, as set out in the letter of the customer dated November 23, 1968, is as follows: "Quantity Description 8 (eight) Mercedes Benz-110 BHP left-hand drive, diesel engined complete bus type LP 1210/52 wheel-base 5195 mm. With aluminium superstructure and all steel body with 54 passenger seats 3 x 2 to the drawing No. 200/412 complete with 7 wheels size 7 x 20 and 7 tyres size 9 x 20 12 ply. The bus will have two doors besides a driver's door and emergency exit. (a) Normal seats with foam rubber. (b) No luggage carrier required. (c) Doors to be open outside with key and lock arrangement. (d) Roof to be painted in cream and body in grey." The price payable was set out in the following terms: "Price f.o.b. Bombay per unit 71,039." Price f.o.b. Bombay for 8 units Irs 568,312." (Emphasis* supplied) As the assessee was manufacturing only bus chassis and the order received by it was for supply of complete buses with aluminium superstructure and all steel bodies with passenger seats, etc., specified therein, the assessee placed an order for building bus bodies on the chassis belong ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was sale of the component, i.e., bus bodies. Neither the customer intended to purchase the bus body nor the assessee intended Here italicised. to sell the same. What was sold by the assessee and purchased by the purchaser in Egypt was a commodity known as "bus", complete in all respects and the consideration paid by the purchaser was also fixed for each unit of "the complete bus". 11.. In view of the above, we are of the clear opinion that the assessee did not sell the bus bodies which it had purchased free of tax under declaration in form No. 14. What was sold by it was a different commodity altogether and hence there was clear non-compliance of the conditions of form 14. The authorities were, therefore, justified in holding that section 14 was attracted and in levying purchase tax on the basis thereof. 12.. So far as the decisions referred to by the learned counsel for the assessee are concerned, we do not find that the ratio of these decisions have any application to the facts of the present case. The controversy before the Supreme Court in Patnaik and Company [1965] 16 STC 364 was whether a contract for construction of bus bodies on the chassis supplied by the customers ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
