9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (4) TMI 553X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as inter-State sale and also admitted the liability of tax thereon. Tribunal has levied the tax on the turnover of cutch which has been accepted as inter-State sale. Tribunal however, has accepted the plea of the dealer with regard to the stock transfer of kattha and deleted the tax assessed by the assessing authority. Being aggrieved by the order of Tribunal, the Commissioner of Sales Tax filed the present revisions. I have heard learned Standing Counsel and Sri Bharat Ji Agrawal, Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the opposite party. The contention of learned Standing Counsel is that the assessing authority has found that the dealer had entered into an agreement with M/s. Kedia Brothers, Calcutta, appointing it as a sole distributor (stockist) for West Bengal, Orissa. Under the agreement M/s. Kedia Brothers gave written order for supply of the goods and in pursuance of the purchase order the goods had been dispatched and the delivery of goods had been taken by it. Goods were sent by railway and the freight was borne by company. The charge in the bill was f. o. r. destination and on the receipt of purchase order, the goods were supplied from Bareilly. It has been observed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ngly the alleged stock transfer of Rs. 13,24,360 was treated as inter-State sale for the assessment year 1969-70. Likewise for the assessment year 1970-71 the stock transfer for Rs. 10,64,780 was treated as inter-State sale and for the assessment year 1971-72 the alleged stock transfer of Rs. 10,64,789.90 was treated as the inter-State sale. The assessing authority in the assessment year 1970-71 had also referred statement of Sri R.P. Saxena, authorised representative in which it was stated as follows: M/s. Kedia Brothers hamare Calcutta, Orissa tatha Jamshedpur mei vikri karne ke lie stockist hai. Wah apna order B. M. Company tatha Calcutta Mukhyalya ko dete hai. Mukhyalya nirdesh Bareilly Bheita Hai. Kabhi-kabhi nirdeshon me yeh bhi spast kiya jata hai ki yah kattha tatha kaccha kis account yani Calcutta, Orissa ya Jamshedpur me kahan ke liye mangaya ja raha hai. Yahan se builty self ki banai jati hai ise kabhi G.M. Company ya Calcutta head office dwara party ko endorse kar diya jata hai, kabhi swayam bhi chhudaya jata hai. The statement of Sri Kumar Swami representative of the company dated November 29, 1973 given during the assessment year 1969-70 was also referred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inter-State sale. He submitted that there was two nature of transactions one in which the goods were dispatched to the Head Office and thereafter on the receipt of the order the goods were delivered to M/s Kedia Brothers and another nature of the transaction was where the R.R. was made in the name of the managing agent or in the name of the self and were subsequently endorsed in favour of M/s. Kedia Brothers. He submitted so far as the first nature of the transaction is concerned it was stock transfer and so far as the second nature of transaction is concerned which was by way of endorsement of R.R. in favour of M/s. Kedia Brothers, it was inter-State sale. He however, fairly submitted that the view of the Tribunal that the transaction in which the R.R. was endorsed in favour of M/s. Kedia Brothers was not liable to tax for the year under consideration is wrong. He fairly submitted that the amendment in section 9 by Act No. 103 of 1976, with effect from September 7, 1976 is not relevant to the issue involved and during the relevant years, the State from where the movement of goods started had right to levy the tax. I have perused the order of the Tribunal and authority below. S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... #39;s own representative or branch office, who initiated the contract may not make the matter different. Such an interception by a known person on behalf of the seller in the delivery State and such person's activities prior to or after the implementation of the contract may not alter the position. In the case of Sahney Steel Press Works Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer reported in [1985] 60 STC 301; [1986] UPTC 105 the honourable Supreme Court held as follows (page 305 of STC): . . . We are unable to agree. Even if, as in the present case, the buyer places an order with the branch office and the branch office communicates the terms and specifications of the orders to the registered office and the branch office itself is concerned with the sales despatching, billing and receiving of the sale price, the conclusion must be that the order placed by the buyer is an order placed with the company, and for the purpose of fulfilling that order the manufactured goods commence their journey from the registered office within the State of Andhra Pradesh to the branch office outside the State for delivery of the goods to the buyer. We must not forget that both the registered office ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r-State sale and kattha as stock transfer. I see no reason for drawing any such distinction. (B) It is not correct that there were two nature of transactions (i) in which the goods had been dispatched to the head office and thereafter on the receipt of the orders, the goods had been supplied to M/s. Kedia Brothers, (ii) R.R. were prepared in the name of managing agent or the self and subsequently it was endorsed in favour of M/s. Kedia Brothers. Assessment order shows there were only second nature of transactions and not first. (C) The findings of the Tribunal that the goods had been first received at Calcutta depot and thereafter on the basis of the subsequent receipt of the supply order, the sale was made to M/s. Kedia Brothers is without any basis and perverse. The table which has been made basis for coming to the conclusion does not prove such fact. (D) The assessing authority in its assessment order has referred the statement of Sri Saxena in which he has admitted the receipt of the orders and the despatch of goods to M/s. Kedia Brothers in pursuance of the said order. He has also admitted that R. R. was made in the name of managing agent and self which was subse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
