9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 1130X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ithin the sale - the Pondicherry dealer had transferred the property in the goods to the buyers in Kerala directly. If that is the position, necessarily a person who had procured the orders for the Pondicherry seller for the buyers in Kerala would not become a purchaser of the goods and for that reason itself the petitioner will not become a purchaser - Decided against Revenue. - WA. No. 1200 of 2010 - - - Dated:- 7-10-2013 - CJ Dr. Manjula Chellur And A. M. Shaffique,JJ. JUDGMENT Shaffique, J. The writ appeal is filed by the respondents in the writ petition. The respondent herein is the petitioner in the writ petition. 2. The writ petition came to be filed challenging Ext.P11 order passed by the Commissioner of Commercial T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are pure inter-state sale made between the Pondicherry dealer and the buyers in Kerala. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Andhra Pradesh v. National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. [127 (2002) STC 280] contending that as far as the field of taxation on sale or purchase taking place in the course of inter-state trade or commerce has been excluded from the competence of State legislature, the State cannot impose any tax on inter-state sales. Judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India and another v. K.G. Khosla and Co. Ltd. (43 STC 457) was referred to contend that a sale would be an inter-State sale even if the contract does not itself provide for movement of goods from one State to another. Another judg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and thereafter effected sale within the State. In that view of the matter Ext.P11 order was set aside and Ext.P8 order was restored. 4. The learned Special Government Pleader inter alia contends that the findings made by the learned Single Judge is not justifiable and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Andhra Pradesh v. National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. [127 (2002) STC 280] was not properly appreciated. The short question to be considered in the above writ petition is whether the petitioner who was a commission agent for the purpose of sale of the aforesaid generators was liable to be imposed with a penalty for suppression of sales turnover. The minimum requirement to be shown is that the petitioner had in fact pu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
