9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 209X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ght to have held that the transaction represents inter state sales only and not local sales since the contract provided for movement of goods from Tamil Nadu to the work site of the buyer at Warora? 2. Whether in facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in confirming the tax liability on the turnover of Rs. 2,37,646/- since the assessing authority had not given any reasons for imposing the tax liability on the aforesaid turnover and the turnover was also not considered by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner? 2. It is seen from the narration of facts in the orders of the authorities below that the assessee herein effected sale to Vijayashree Colata Limited, Warora and claimed the sale as an inter-State sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and the sale were intimately linked to each other, that the same could not be separated for the purpose of treating the sale as a local sale. Admitting the fact that the buyers had insured the goods, the payment being an ex-godown price and the movement of goods by the buyer, learned counsel pointed out that these were matters of contract, which, in any event, cannot be a decisive factor on the character of the sale. Given the fact that the parties had contemplated movement of goods pursuant to the contract of sale, the transactions were liable to be assessed only under the Central Sales Tax Act. In this regard, he placed reliance on the decisions reported in [1979] 43 STC 457 (Union of India Vs. Khosla & Co. Ltd. (S.C.)), [1986] 63 STC 39 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... either an express covenant or an implied one under the contract by a mutual understanding and it is not necessary that in all cases, there must be direct evidence showing certain obligations. The obligation could be inferred from circumstantial evidence also. In the decision reported in AIR 1975 SC 887 (Oil India Ltd. v. Superintendent of Taxes (AIR 1975 SC 887), the Apex Court pointed out that for a transaction, to be an inter-State sale, there must be a movement of goods occasioned by the said sale from one State to another. No matter in which State the property in the goods passes, the movement of goods occasioned by the sale from one State to another would make a sale as one in the nature of inter-State sale. The Apex Court also pointe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t necessary that the contract of sale has to expressly provide for the movement of goods; it was sufficient that the movement of goods is implicit in the sale. Thus, in the background of the settled position of law, if the sale effected by the assessee and the movement thereon are inextricably and intimately connected with each other, then the one and only inference that would flow from the same is that, it is an inter-State sale. Thus, the criteria for considering the transaction as an inter-State sale or not, is the movement of goods intimately connected with the sale. The fact that the purchaser had borne the insurance charges or the seller had borne the insurance charges or that the purchaser had moved the goods at their own cost would ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
