9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (2) TMI 489X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns. We may also point out that the prayer made in the writ petitions does not tally with what has been prayed for in the affidavits filed in support of the writ petitions. In the affidavits, the prayer mentioned is to issue a writ of certiorari quashing the common order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal dated July 19, 1989, in respect of the aforementioned assessment years and to declare that the sales tax authorities in the State of A.P. have no power, authority or jurisdiction to assess or collect the Central sales tax (for short, "CST") on the inter-division stock transfers effected by the Hyderabad unit of BHEL. The other prayer incorporated in the affidavit is as follows: "In the event this honourable court comes to the conclusion that in law the commercial tax authorities in the State of Andhra Pradesh would be competent to levy CST on the transactions of stock transfers effected by the Hyderabad unit of the petitioner-company, ......., an appropriate writ or direction in the nature of mandamus be issued directing respondents 5 to 12 to return to the State of A.P. the sums collected by them towards CST from the executing units of the petitioner-company in respect of goo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... identity before they were despatched to the inter-State customer by the executing unit. The order of the Tribunal has been assailed in the writ petitions almost on the same grounds which were raised in the T.R.Cs. At any rate, no additional arguments have been raised in these writ petitions as regards the legality of the view taken by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. In view of the dismissal of T.R.Cs., the prayer to quash the common order of the Tribunal or to declare that the sales tax authorities of the Andhra Pradesh State have no authority or jurisdiction to assess and collect the CST on the transactions in respect of which CST has already been paid by the executing unit in the other State in which it is registered (sic). What remains now is the prayer (c) extracted above. The question is whether we should direct the States of Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh, Karnataka and Madhya Pradesh and the concerned sales tax authorities of those States to transfer the CST collected by them on the basis of the returns filed by the concerned unit of BHEL itself in respect of the goods moved from the Hyderabad unit directly to the site of the inter-State customer for which the invoice has be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also pointed out certain difficulties in working out the turnover with reference to which the refund, if at all, could be directed. For more than one reason, we feel that we should refrain from issuing any directions to the sales tax authorities of the other States in exercise of our jurisdiction under article 226. The first and foremost consideration which has weighed with us in coming to this conclusion is that the Supreme Court is still seized of the matter. The writ petitions filed in the Supreme Court under article 32 seeking for almost the same directions are pending. The Supreme Court thought it fit to postpone the hearing of those cases till the decision is rendered by this Court in the tax revision cases. Their Lordships observed: "In our opinion, it would be appropriate to have the views of the High Court in the matter before we proceed to decide the issues arising in this writ petition." Pending the hearing of the writ petition under article 32, the Supreme Court granted a general direction to the States concerned not to insist upon the payment of CST if it is proved by BHEL that CST has already been paid to one of the States in respect of the disputed transactions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se it became aware of the advertisement in Calcutta, it submitted its bid from Calcutta and made representations demanding justice from Calcutta. Their Lordships observed: "The advertisement itself mentioned that the tenders should be submitted to EIL at New Delhi; that those would be scrutinised at New Delhi and that a final decision whether or not to award the contract to the tenderer would be taken at New Delhi. Of course, the execution of the contract work was to be carried out at Hazira in Gujarat. Therefore, merely because it read the advertisement at Calcutta and submitted the offer from Calcutta and made representations from Calcutta would not, in our opinion, constitute facts forming an integral part of the cause of action. So also the mere fact that it sent fax messages from Calcutta and received a reply thereto at Calcutta would not constitute an integral part of the cause of action. Besides the fax message of January 15, 1993, cannot be construed as conveying rejection of the offer as that fact occurred on January 27, 1993. We are, therefore, of the opinion that even if the averments in the writ petition are taken as true, it cannot be said that a part of the cause of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
