9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 1210X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respondent 5 as a inter-State sale. 3. Looking to the counter affidavit filed by the State of Jharkhand in paragraph nos.12 and 14 it has been observed: "12. That in view of the said information given by the petitioner, it is an admission of the fact that there had been two transactions. In the first transaction, the petitioner had been the purchasing dealer of coal from the Central Coalfields Limited which occurred in the State of Jharkhand and in the other transaction, the petitioner was selling dealer of coal to a purchaser outside the State i.e. Uttar Pradesh. Thus, the first transaction was intrastate sale and the second transaction was interstate sale for which the statutory forms are to be submitted before the Assessing Authority. 14. That admittedly in the present case, there had been two transactions of sale i.e. intrastate as well as interstate, the petitioner is duty bound to submit two different statutory forms before the assessing authority. The assessment proceeding of the petitioner for financial year 201213 is continuing, which would be done in accordance with law." (Emphasis supplied) 4. Having heard counsels for both the sides and looking to the facts and ci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Vs. Central Coalfields Limited and others, reported in 2015(4)JCR 129 (Jhr.) that movement of goods from one State to another State is not due to incidence of e-auction of coal between the respondents and the petitioner and therefore, Central Sales Tax cannot be levied by the respondent no.5, but, only Value Added Tax can be levied. The movement of goodscoal from Jharkhand to Uttar Pradesh is independent of incidence of e-auction. 13. Petitioner is a registered dealer within the State of Jharkhand. During the e-auction of coal proposed by respondent no.5Coal Company, this petitioner, who is situated within the State of Jharkhand, had participated in the e-auction of coal. 14. Petitioner being the highest bidder was a purchaser of coal from respondent no.5 which is also situated within the State of Jharkhand. Now, consideration has also been moved from petitioner to respondent No.5 and the sale was completed between the petitioner and respondent no.5 within the State of Jharkhand. 15. Looking to the provision of the Jharkhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005, the petitioner is liable to make payment of VAT which is at the rate of 5% of the sale price of the coal, as the sale is an intra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tioner and Uttar Pradesh Sale, which is the second sale. For the ready reference, Section 3 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 reads as under: " 3. When is a sale or purchase of goods said to take place in the course of inter-State trade or commerce. A sale or purchase of goods shall be deemed to take place in the course of inter-State trade or commerce if the sale or purchase (a) occasions the movement of goods from one State to another; or (b) is effected by a transfer of documents of title to the goods during their movement from one State to another." (Emphasis supplied) 22. In view of the Section of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, the presumption of inter-State will come into existence only upon fulfilling the following two conditions: (a) There must be one transaction of sale or purchase of goods. (b) In this one transaction of sale or purchase of goods, movement should be from one State to another State. In the facts of this case, in first sale between petitioner and respondent no.5, goods have never moved out of State. But the goods have moved out of State in second transaction of State. 23. In the facts of the present case, as stated herein above, there is no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... able to be taxed as there is no dispute of sale within the State of Tamil Nadu. The petitioners in all cases have bound themselves by the terms and conditions contained in the tender-cum-auction sale notification and the provisions of the TNVAT Act, 2006, for payment of tax on sale of goods within the State of Tamil Nadu. Therefore, they cannot resile from their contract nor does the law provide for payment of lesser tax, as the sale in the present case attracts the provisions of the TNVAT Act, 2006 as set out above. Merely because there is movement of goods from the State of Tamil Nadu to another State at the instance of the buyer, that would not take it out of the purview of the term sale within the State. There are certain rules which provide for transportation of goods in question after the sale. But that does not change the character of the sale within the State consequent to tender-cum-auction sale. The benefit which the petitioners may get out of the provisions of the Income-tax Act is totally alien to the payment of tax under the TNVAT Act, 2006, as the two enactments operated in different fields. There is no scope or provision for reading one Act into the other, unless th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the auction sale in Tamil Nadu and the movement of goods to Karnataka. The said movement was purely voluntary at the option of the petitioner and not under any legal obligation. Hence, the decision in South India Viscose Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu [1981] 48 STC 232 (SC); AIR 1981 SC 1604 is clearly distinguishable." The decision of the Division Bench, cited supra, fortifies the view now taken by this court. For the reasons stated supra and in view of the decision of the Division Bench of this court, the plea of the petitioners that it is an inter-State sale has no legal basis and hence, the said contention is rejected. The challenge to levy of Tamil Nadu value added tax therefore fails." 27. In view of the aforesaid decision, even if the movement of goods have taken place out of one State to another State, by per se, Central State Tax is not leviable. One has to draw his attention, whether the movement of goods from one State to another has taken place due to e-auction or not. If answer is negative, the Central Sales Tax is not leviable. There may be second sale. Subsequent purchaser may purchase the same goods. Now, if due to subsequent sale, if, the very same goods are movin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
