9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (3) TMI 340X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ax Appellate Tribunal is right in holding that the sales effected by the petitioners are local sales? (ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal erred in stating that in the absence of a specific order, there cannot be an inter-State sale as contemplated under Section 3(a) of the Act? (iii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal is right in confirming the levy of penalty in a revision of assessment under Section 16 of the Act? 2. The assessment years under consideration are 1989-90, 1988-89 and 1990-91 respectively. The assessment years relating to 1989-90 and 1988-89 were made under Section 16 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act and the asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -state character of the sale. However, based on the records available, the Assessing Authority came to the conclusion that the goods had been delivered locally and that the sales were concluded in the Madras. Consequently, the assessment for the assessment years 1988-89 and 1989-90 were revised under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. In that process, the Assessing Authority levied penalty under Section 16(2) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Act. Aggrieved by the said assessments, the assesee went on appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, who confirmed the assessments. The Appellate Authority recorded the finding in his order relating to 1988-89, that the assessee admitted that the goods were taken delivery by the representat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pointed out that the authorised representative of the assessee conceded that there was no agreement providing for movement of goods to Andaman pursuant to the sale or as an incident of sale. In the absence of any agreement as well as in the absence of material to show that the movement of goods to Andaman without any break for anyone to take delivery in Chennai, the sales had to be treated as local sales. In that process, the Tribunal also referred to the decision reported in 37 STC 214 BALABHAGAS HULASCHAND v. STATE OF ORISSA and held that in the absence of material to pin-point that the recipient of the goods at Chennai are not agents of the Andaman dealers, the sales had to be treated as local sales; that there is hardly any material to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
