9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (2) TMI 668X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Jamshedpur in the erstwhile State of Bihar, but now in the State of Jharkhand. The first contract was for the supply of straps, seals, tools and spare parts. According to the petitioners, straps and seals are supplied directly from Hyderabad to TISCO, Jamshedpur, and the tools and spare parts are imported and supplied to Tisco from Hyderabad. It is collecting and paying tax on the sales under the Central Sales Tax Act. The petitioner has also entered into a contract with Tisco for service, examination, tests, adjustment, cleaning, oiling, etc., of the tools which are being used at the work site of Tisco. Engineers and mechanics of the petitionercompany go to the site and do the servicing. The petitioner has yet another contract called uniti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so put forward that the petitioner was not effecting any local sales within the State of Jharkhand and was not violating any of the provisions of the Bihar Finance Act. The petitioner also produced various documents in support of its case along with a detailed written representation. On being asked to file one more complete set of transactions between the parties, the petitioner filed the said documents. After hearing the petitioner and considering the relevant materials, the Deputy Commissioner, respondent No. 2, passed an order on August 31, 1989 holding that the contracts are one and the same; that sales took place in terms of the contract at Jamshedpur and as such the petitioner was exigible to sales tax under the Bihar Finance Act and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Deputy Commissioner under section 33(1) of the Act should not be entertained or was not maintainable. We are not inclined to examine or entertain this objection, since we feel that the writ petition having been admitted to hearing as early as on April 18, 1990 it would be unjust to refuse to decide the question on merits after more than 13 years of such admission. We also feel that the question involved is essentially a question of law, because the facts do not appear to be much disputed and in that situation, it would be appropriate not to accede to the argument of the existence of an alternative remedy raised by the learned counsel for the department. 5.. On an examination of the order, annexure 6, what we find is that the Deputy Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t it was really a sale within the State of Bihar, it had to be held that this was not an inter-State sale, but an intra-State sale. We find on an examination of the order, annexure 6, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, that the Deputy Commissioner has not properly considered the impact of section 3 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, and the decisions relied on by the petitioner. The Deputy Commissioner has essentially proceeded on the basis that the title to the goods had passed within the State of Bihar. The question has to be examined afresh. Even if the said finding is correct, (we are not pronouncing one way or the other on it), it has to be considered whether it would not still be a sale coming within section 3 of the Central Sales Ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
