1992 (7) TMI 320

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... and taking into account the fact than no "C" forms were produced. On appeal, the first appellate authority allowed the claim holding the transaction as a stock transfer from head office to branches. By virtue of the suo motu power under section 34 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, the Joint Commissioner sought to revise the order of the three assessment years, after issuing notice and calling for objections from the assessee. 3.. The Joint Commissioner found from the assessment records that the orders for supply of goods from branches speak of the customers with their name and address with the description of goods to be supplied to them. As such the Joint Commissioner came to the conclusion that the goods were despatched by .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... perusal of the files of the first appellate authority as well as the revisional authority would clearly show that the first appellate authority had not gone into the matter or rather not applied its mind before setting aside the assessment order. In our view, the files do not disclose any material to justify the conclusion arrived at by the first appellate authority, that is to hold that the transaction in question is a stock transfer and not an inter-State sale. It has been held by a Division Bench of this Court in Chesebrough Pond's Inc. v. State of Tamil Nadu [1983] 52 STC 164 when considering a case of a head office with branch at Bombay which placed orders and on the orders of the branch office the head office consigning goods by lorr .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... , its movement from the very beginning from the registered office all the way until delivery is received by the buyer is an inter-State movement. 7.. In view of the categorical decisions of the apex Court of the land in English Electric Company of India Ltd. v. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer [1976] 38 STC 475, South India Viscose Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu [1981] 48 STC 232 and Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer [1985] 60 STC 301, we have no hesitation to hold that the transaction which is the subject-matter in these appeals cannot be held to be as "stock transfer", but only as "inter-State sale" under section 3(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act. Accordingly the appeals fail and are dismissed. There will be no order .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X