9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (12) TMI 857X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot a local transaction, which is exigible to tax under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. The facts: The assessees is a dealer in pumps, spares and electrical goods at Madurai. After obtaining orders for the supply of pumps and motors from the dealers within the State, it placed orders with the suppliers in Pune and requested the suppliers to move the goods directly to the places where the ultimate buyers were doing business. The lorry receipts received by the assessee were endorsed in favour of the ultimate buyers. The assessee claimed exemption on the turnover of Rs. 1,42,370 for the assessment year 1989-90 and Rs. 1,00,129 for the assessment year 1990-91 under section 6(2)(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The assessing officer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the dealers have issued despatch instructions to the suppliers to despatch the goods, it cannot be claimed that the dealer could get the order from various parties from Tamil Nadu and place the order to the suppliers in other States, issue despatch instructions, receive lorry receipt and make an endorsement and then claim it as a transit sale. On that reasoning, it was concluded that the transaction in this case is not a sale in transit as defined under section 6(2)(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner had accepted a part of the turnover in which the ultimate buyer's name has not been indicated and rejected the part of the turnover in respect of which the invoice indicates the name of the ultimate purc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rovisions it is clear that availing of the benefit under section 6(2) of the Act, second or subsequent inter-State sales must have been effected by transfer of documents of title to goods. The factual finding of the appellate authority that the link was broken when the goods reached the assessee, but for arriving at such a conclusion there was no material. The one and only material on which the Appellate Assistant Commissioner has come to the conclusion was that there was some difference in the description of the goods in the invoice of the supplier from Pune and invoice raised by the assessee after making an endorsement in the document of title-the lorry receipt. The assessee has given the full description of the goods whereas the selling ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
