9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (3) TMI 629X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce their submissions on this question, which had been argued before this court, and also the incidental or the ancillary questions, if any, which may be argued, and decide the matter afresh, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Revision allowed. - - - - - Dated:- 17-3-2008 - VAA D.S.R. RM AND NARAYANA P.S. , JJ. ORDER:- The order of the court was made by P.S. NARAYANA J. Heard Sri Nageswara Rao, learned senior counsel, representing Sri S. Dwarakanath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Sri K. Raji Reddy, learned Standing Counsel, representing the respondents. The only question, which had been argued ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... its factory at Faridabad and 21 branches all over India. The petitioner is engaged in execution of works contracts and also in trading in electrical goods. It is also the case of the petitioner that in the course of assessment for 1994-95 under the CST Act, the petitioner claimed exemption on a turnover of Rs. 14,91,959 which represents transit sales effected by the petitioner under section 6(2) of the CST Act. The transit sales are effected while the goods are in transit from one State to another by endorsement of documents of title to the goods to a third party. The petitioner receives E1 form from the supplier and C form from the buyer and on filing such declarations, exemption would be allowed under section 6(2) of the CST Act. S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Further, it is stated that the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, by its order, dated August 23, 2007, dismissed the appeal on an altogether different ground without putting the petitioner on notice. While the question before the Tribunal was whether the turnover of Rs. 10,30,650 is deemed to be covered by E1 form, the Tribunal did not advert to that question but proceeded to hold that the manner in which the transactions were effected by the petitioner itself does not qualify to be called as a transit sale. According to the Tribunal, under section 6(2) of the Act, for the subsequent sale to be exempt, the first sale should have either one or other of the following two conditions: (a) Sale has occasioned movement of such goods from one ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. Accordingly, the sale of goods worth Rs. 14,91,959 was held to be not eligible for exemption under section 6(2) and any submission of E1 forms would be immaterial since the basic ingredients of section are not satisfied. The assessing authority was directed to pass consequential orders within three months from the date of order. Thus, challenging the order impugned of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, the present revision had been filed raising several grounds and also formulating the questions of law. The relevant portion of the order, which is impugned in the present tax revision case, reads as hereunder: The question to be decided by us is whether the goods sold by the appellant to M/s. GVK Industries are covered by the prov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red to in clause (a) of sub-section (4) of section 8, or (ii) . . .' From a reading of the above section, it is clear that the section envisages two sales in which the second sale will be exempt subject to the fact that either one or the other of the two conditions laid down in the section, is met by the first sale. For the subsequent sale to be exempt, the first sale, according to the section shall have either one or the other of the following two attributes: (a) The sale has occasioned the movement of such goods from one State to another; (b) The sale has been effected by a transfer of documents of title to such goods during their movement from one State to another. It is very clear from a plain reading of section 6(2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... whether any sale took place within the State of Andhra Pradesh. Having decided that issue, Tribunal was not required to go into any other question particularly when the relevant factors were not before it. . . . In the light of the view expressed by the apex court, as specified above, and also in the light of the specific stand taken by the learned senior counsel representing the petitioner that, for the first time, the Tribunal had decided altogether a new question, which, in fact, had not been, before either the preliminary authority or the appellate authority, this court is inclined to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the Tribunal to give an opportunity to both the parties to advance their submissions on this q ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
