9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (3) TMI 342X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o be dismissed. - Decided against Revenue. - Tax Revision Case Nos. 37 & 38 of 2000 - - - Dated:- 8-8-2013 - MS. G. ROHINI AND CHALLA KODANDA RAM, JJ. For the Appellant : P. Balaji Varma For the Respondent : S. Dwarakanath JUDGMENT :- PER : Challa Kodanda Ram These two tax revision cases are filed by the State under section 22(1) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957, questioning the common order dated September 29,1999, passed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad in T.A. Nos. 182 and 183 of 1999. In these revision cases, the following questions of law have been raised for consideration by this court : (i) Whether these disputed turnovers are relate to transactions of sales in the course of inter-State trade and commerce ? (ii) Whether the S.T.A.T., A.P., is justified in setting aside the orders of the Deputy Commissioner (CT), Eluru, by holding that latter failed to gather sufficient material evidence when essentially the burden of proof under section 6A of the CST Act is on the assessee-appellant ? (iii) Whether the S.T.A.T., A.P., being revisional authority-cum-appellate authority as per t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng to depot/branch transfer of cotton yarn made from Tanuku to Maharashtra (Bombay-Ichalkaranji), West Bengal and Tamil Nadu and allowed the exemption of the turnovers in exercise of the powers conferred under section 6A of the CST Act. The revisional authority had reversed the order of the assessing authority which was the subject-matter of appeal before the Tribunal. After consideration of various aspects in an elaborate order, the Tribunal recorded as under : 22. We have considered the rival contentions and are at a loss to understand how Sri Harikishan Bhagaria's deposition on hearsay can be of any evidential value. Sri Harikishan Bhagaria, according to us, could not have known the facts and could not have been the witness to the same during the year 1992-93 and 1993-94 as his appointment itself is subsequent to the years 1992-93 and 1993-94 in Sri Laxminarayana Gourishankar Private Limited. Sri Laxminaryana Gourishankar Private Limited itself had taken up the management of the depot/branch of the company on November 1993 which is completely beyond the assessment year 1992-93 and beyond a part of the assessment year 1993-94. x x xx ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and sold at other places cannot be treated as the turnover under local Act. As long as the ingredients of section 3(a) or 3(b) are not satisfied factually, a transaction cannot be termed as inter-State sale. In this case, the D.C. has failed to establish such facts by bringing on record any documentary evidence by way of prior contracts or purchase orders to satisfy under section 3(a) nor it is his case that the appellant has transferred the documents of title to the goods, namely, the lorry receipts to any person. x x xx xx 50. The place of business is an inclusive definition and covers any place where the dealer keeps his goods. In the present case, the dealer has kept the goods at the transporters premises after arrival and thus, there is delivery to the appellant. Thereafter the goods are in legal custody of the appellant. The goods are sold to prospective buyers at the destination and the delivery is organised at the transporter premises by independent delivery instructions of the appellant's depot. This amounts to taking delivery of the goods from the appellant at the transports premises but not taking delivery from the tr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Tribunal would contend that the reasoning of the Tribunal that the authorities can go behind the form F declaration and investigate the matter is not correct. In view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ashok Leyland Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu [2004] 134 STC 473, the order of the Tribunal reads as under : There cannot be a dispute that the authorities have power to examine the matter beyond the F form, declarations and the Deputy Commissioner acting in revision can go beyond the form F and investigate the matter. Section 20 of the APGST Act which provides revision power also contemplates that the revision authority can make enquiries as he thinks fit. Thus merely because the F forms are filed and accepted by the assessing authority, it cannot be correct to say that no further enquiry should be made. 9. In the judgment of the Supreme Court referred to above, it has been held (pages 508, 514 and 515 in 134 STC) : 57. Section 6A of the Act although provides for a burden of proof, the same has to be read in the context of section 6 of the said Act. Section 6 provides for liability to pay tax on inter-State sales. Any transaction which does not fall within t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
