Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2009 (11) TMI 856

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... officer and treating the transaction as inter-State sale falling under section 3(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 is correct or not.   The brief facts leading to the case in a nutshell are hereunder: The respondent is a manufacturer of C.T.D. bars, M.S. rounds, M.S. angles and M. S. casted blocks and an assessee on the file of the Commercial Tax Officer, Park Town II Assessment Circle. In respect of the assessment year 1996-97, the respondent was assessed on a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 3,57,41,933 in the CST order dated December 28, 1998 in which the claim of the assessee in respect of the said turnover as consignment sale through their agent in other State has been rejected on the ground that the goods were sold by the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... arrival from the State of Tamil Nadu and there was no evidence to show that the consignments received by the agents were taken to the stock and thereafter sold to various customers. Both the first appellate authority as well as the Tribunal have held that the copies of the sale pattials, invoices rendered by the agents and the excise gate pass-cum-consignment sale note would show that the transactions are consignment sales and not inter-State sales. The said authorities have also held that there is no evidence of any hundi drawn by the assessee or any cash paid by the agents and received by the assessee before the arrival of the goods at the hands of the assessee.   The mere fact that the goods despatched by the assessee and receive .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... STC 273 (Mad) the honourable High Court was pleased to hold that the burden of proof is on the assessee to prove to the satisfaction of the assessing officer that particulars furnished in form F are true and a genuine. The said issue was also confirmed by the subsequent judgment of the Division Bench A. Dhandapani v. State of Tamil Nadu reported in [1995] 96 STC 98 (Mad) wherein also the Division Bench was pleased to hold that it is for the dealer to prove that the particulars mentioned in form F are true. Therefore, a reading of the above judgments would indicate that in the present case on hand, the assessee has proved with documentary evidence before the authorities that the particulars furnished by him are true and genuine and there is .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... to its agents and therefore, the same is not an inter-State sale. The issue can be looked at from another angle as well. As observed above, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner as well as the Appellate Tribunal have considered the entire records available and the documents have been verified by the Department representative as well. Hence orders have been passed by the appellate authorities on a consideration of the materials available on record. Therefore, when orders have been passed by the Appellate Tribunal confirming the order of the first appellate authority based upon the materials available on record, this court exercising the power under article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot go into the merits of the said decision unless .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... yed by the High Court in its judgment goes to show that the High Court has exercised its certiorari jurisdiction for correcting the judgment of the appellate court. In Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai [2003] 6 SCC 675 this court has ruled that to be amenable to correction in certiorari jurisdiction, the error committed by the court or authority on whose judgment the High Court was exercising jurisdiction, should be an error which is self-evident. An error which needs to be established by lengthy and complicated arguments or by indulging in a long-drawn process of reasoning, cannot possibly be an error available for correction by writ of certiorari. If it is reasonably possible to form two opinions on the same material, the finding arrived a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates