9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (10) TMI 557X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o paid tax on the same turnover in the States of Bihar and Maharashtra. The assessing authority did not accept the claim of the appellant. He came to the conclusion that the inter-State movements of goods to the branches though styled as stock transfers were really in the nature of inter-State sales effected to Coal India Ltd. According to the assessing authority, the explosives were dispatched to the branches at Dhanbad and Nagpur for the purpose of effecting delivery to the various collieries of Coal India Ltd., pursuant to the purchase orders placed by Coal India Ltd. on the appellant-company. The assessing authority held that the branches acted only as delivery agents of Hosur head office, the goods having been brought from Hosur to the said two branches for onward transmission to the collieries pursuant to the contracts of sale between the appellant and Coal India Ltd. The said turnover was therefore subjected to tax at 10 per cent in the absence of C forms and penalty at 1 times the tax was also levied. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner confirmed the assessment and levy of penalty. The appellant then preferred a second appeal to the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the parties to implead the other States so that, if necessary, the matter may be heard out and disposed of in their presence. However, in the event another forum is created by a Parliamentary Act, it will be open to the parties to approach the said forum. These appeals and writ petitions are disposed of with the aforementioned directions and observations. It may be noted that the Supreme Court was disposing of four appeals filed by Ashok Leyland Ltd. [2004] 134 STC 473, directly against the order of the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal and a writ petition under article 32 filed by the same company for declaring section 9(2) of the CST Act as unconstitutional. As seen from paragraph 101 of judgment, those appeals and the writ petition were disposed of with the observation that the appellant/writ petitioner (Ashok Leyland Co.,) would be entitled to move the High Court in accordance with law. It was also observed whether the finding arrived at by Tribunal would attract the exceptions carved out hereinbefore (fraud, etc.,) would require a detailed examination . There were two other appeals filed by other parties directly against the order of the Tribunal. With referen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thority will pass necessary orders or if necessary hear the matter further. Thereafter, there was no response on the part of the State of Tamil Nadu (respondents 1 and 2). A counter-affidavit was filed on behalf of the State of Jharkhand (respondent No. 3) in which the action of the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Authorities in treating the transactions as inter-State sales was justified. On behalf of respondent No. 5, State of Maharashtra, the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Nagpur (MS) made a written request to adjourn the case on the ground that the relevant records were not traceable at Nagpur office. Time was granted to file written submissions. No response was filed by the State of Maharashtra thereafter. We are of the view that the remedy chosen by the appellant by way of filing the appeal before this authority is misconceived and the appeal does not lie under section 20 of the CST Act. Therefore, the merits of the case cannot be gone into. This authority, i.e., Central Sales Tax Appellate Authority has been constituted in order to settle the inter-State disputes falling under section 6A read with section 9 of the CST Act (vide section 19). Section 20 is the appeal provi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nst the order of High Court. The Supreme Court disposed of the appeal in the manner stated supra (vide para 3.1). The Supreme Court did observe, for whatever reason it may be, that the issue has to be examined afresh by the High Court in the light of its decision (i.e., Ashok Leyland case). In the face of this order of the Supreme Court, this appellate body cannot assume jurisdiction to deal with the appeal. We would like to point out for the sake of clarity that Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Authorities should have taken the lead to move the High Court for re-examination of the matter in accordance with the observations of the Supreme Court; as otherwise, the Tribunal's order will be holding the field with the attendant consequence of the tax demand remaining unenforceable. Unfortunately, such step has not been taken by the Tamil Nadu State. In spite of giving opportunity to the State to spell out its proposed action, the Tamil Nadu State authorities have not responded. This authority, which is a creature of statute is strictly bound by the terms of the provision conferring the jurisdiction to entertain and hear the appeal. The appellate power cannot be assumed by way of implication ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
