9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (2) TMI 635X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t dated December 31, 1993, will show the circumstances under which the said Government order was issued. In the judgment of the Delhi High Court reported in [1980] 45 STC 52 (Arjan Dass Gupta Bros. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax) it has been laid down that it is not open to the assessee to expand the movement of goods beyond the time of physical landing of the goods. Consequently, where the goods have already landed and after that date the transfer of documents is effected by endorsement, it should be deemed to be a local sale, liable to tax and cannot be treated as an inter-State sale in the course of the movement of goods from one State to another. Earlier, the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes permitted a grace period of 15 days for completing the formalities like getting the documents through bank, transfer of the same, etc. It is thus clear that the grant of time after the landing of the goods was only to help the assessee to have some breathing time to make a transfer of the goods by transferring documents of title to the goods and yet claim the same as transfer during the movement of the goods from one State to another. For the sake of convenience we will adopt the word tr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... du State and assessed accordingly. It is significant to note that the carrier, M/s. Patel Roadways Ltd., have given a certificate that the subject consignment dated January 13, 1994 booked from Nasik to Madras had arrived at Madras on January 21, 1994 and the same was delivered vide delivery note-cum-cash memo dated March 24, 1994. Apparently this certificate is relied upon to show that delivery was effected only on March 24, 1994, whereas the assessee s sale bill was raised on March 2, 1994. In all the cases, the facts are similar and the orders of assessment have been made under similar circumstances. 4.. A counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondent in O.P. No. 1363 of 1996. It is explained that G.O. No. 96, CT RE Department/dated April 7, 1995, is for the period from April 1, 1994, onwards. It is not relevant to the order of assessment for the year 1993-94. But it is admitted that G.O. Ms. No. 423, CT RE Department, dated December 31, 1993, will govern the case. It is further pointed out that the impugned Government orders have been upheld by the division Bench of the Madras High Court in W.P. Nos. 10046 to 10050 of 1993 dated March 19, 1994. It is also pointed out ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es Tax Act cannot be taken away by the State by virtue of article 286 of the Constitution of India. We will now look into the judgment of the Delhi High Court and the judgment of the Madras High Court to decide the issue raised before us. 6.. The Delhi High Court case was almost of identical facts. The assessee/ dealer placed orders on colliery owners in Bengal/Bihar after purchase of coal. The railway receipts of the consignment of coal would be in the name of the dealer as consignee, freight to pay and the consignment of coal were despatched to Delhi. The invoices covering the cost of coal despatched and the sales tax paid under the Central Sales Tax Act charged by the colliery owners on the consignments of coal were also in the name of the dealer. On the arrival of the consignments at Delhi, the dealer would present the railway receipt before the Civil Supplies authorities for permission to import within the Union Territory of Delhi. This was required under certain notifications under the Essential Commodities Act. Thereafter, the dealer endorses the railway receipt to purchasing retailers in Delhi. The actual delivery of the coal wagon in Delhi would be taken by the purch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oods from the railway yard or godown, there is movement of the goods from one State to another. One cannot give a meaning which is contrary to the plain understanding of the section. 8.. However, we are saved from expressing a definite opinion on this issue because the Madras High Court in a batch of cases bearing numbers W.P. Nos. 14757 of 1993, etc., dated April 5, 1994 (Shri Hariharan Paper Trader v. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer [1999] 114 STC 598) has considered this very question of the validity of G.O. Ms. No. 423, dated December 31, 1993 and held that the G.O. is not contrary to the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act. The Madras High Court held that the G.O. was only for a beneficial purpose to bail out the assessees who were faced with the assessment based on the Delhi High Court judgment. Therefore, whenever the transfer was effected within the grace period the Government orders gave an extended time to the assessees and it is far beyond the period prescribed in section 3(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act. It was not the intention of the Government Orders to abridge the scope of the section 3(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act. On the other hand, they only intended to e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
