9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 1126X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hand in its Department of Commercial Taxes, came out with the letter dated 10.01.2002, as contained in Annexure-B to the counter-affidavit, wherein it was clearly stated that unless the satisfaction about the inter-State sale, as on the four points detailed in the said letter is arrived, the transaction cannot be considered to be inter-State sale. It is found that neither in the impugned assessment order, nor in the impugned Judgement passed by the Tribunal, there is any mention that the authorities, before coming to the conclusion that the sales in question were in fact the inter-State sales, had verified the documents of the petitioner relating to the four points as detailed in the letter dated 10.01.2002. Faced with this situation, it is found that neither the impugned assessment order, nor the impugned Judgement passed by the Tribunal, can be sustained in the eyes of law, as they have held the transactions in question to be inter-State sales, only on the basis of the road permits issued by the petitioner firm. As such, both these impugned order / Judgement cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. The matter remanded back to the Assessing Authority, to determine the liabili ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rity, in which, the petitioner claimed that in view of the law settled by the Division Bench of Patna High Court in Laxmi Hard Coke Manufacturing Company Vs. State of Bihar through Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, reported in (1999) 1 PLJR 713, holding that only on the basis of the road permit issued under Form XXVIII-B as prescribed under Rule 31 of the Bihar Sales Tax Rules, 1959, it could not be concluded that the sale was inter-State sale, liable to tax under the CST Act, the petitioner was not liable to pay the tax on the counter sales made by it to the consignees outside the State. The Assessing Authority, in its order dated 11.01.2009, taking into consideration the fact that after the aforesaid Judgement of the Hon ble Patna High Court, the State of Jharkhand had prescribed three different coloured road permits in Form XXVIII-B, in which, the blue coloured road permit permitted the movement of the sold goods outside the State, concluded that the counter-sales made by the petitioner were, in fact, the inter-State sales, on which, the petitioner was liable to pay tax under the CST Act. The petitioner challenged the said assessment order before the Appellate Authority, and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ordingly, the transactions would be inter-State sales and not intra-State sales. In the said counter-affidavit, one letter dated 10.1.2002, issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, State of Jharkhand, has also been brought on record, whereby, all the Assessing Authorities of the Commercial Taxes in the State, were informed that in view of the decision of the Hon ble Patna High Court in Laxmi Hard Coke s case (supra), a particular sale could not be treated as inter-State sale only on the basis of the mentioning the names of the purchasers residing outside the State, in the contract letters, or the invoices or the cash memos. By the said letter, the State Government clarified 4 (four) points to be determined for determining a particular sale to be inter-State sale, as detailed in the said letter. It is stated in the letter in unequivocal terms that before determining the sale to be inter-State sale, the Assessing Authorities shall satisfy themselves on the four points, specified in the said letter, and it is also stated that in absence of any proof to the contrary, the counter sales should be treated as intra-State sales. This letter has been brought on record as Annexure-B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ounsel for the petitioner, that the decisions of the Assessing Authority as well as the Tribunal, are based only on the basis of the blue coloured road permit issued by the petitioner to the purchasers, and accordingly, the same cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. Learned counsel has drawn our attention specifically towards the assessment order, which has been brought on record as Annexure-1 to the writ application, to show that the Assessing Authority had examined all the account books of the petitioner before making the assessment and the same were found to be perfectly in order. The Assessing Authority has also stated that there was no irregularity even in the gross turnover shown in the return. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that since the assessment order has been passed only on the basis of the road permit, the same cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 9.Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer and has also drawn our attention towards the assessment order, in which, the Assessing Authority has opined that in order to save itself from the liability of the Central Sales Tax, the assessee did not want to produce the documents a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urther submitted by learned counsel for the State that the decision of this Court in Bharat Coal Products case (supra), shall be fully applicable to the case of the petitioner also, inasmuch as, in the present case, the petitioner has changed its stand by submitting the return under the Central Sales Tax Act, showing the sales to be an inter-State sales, and also making the deposit of the tax, but claiming that the tax was not leviable, and the tax was paid under protest. 14.We cannot accept both these submissions of the learned counsel for the State, inasmuch as, the law has been laid down by the Division Bench of the Patna High Court in Laxmi Hard Coke case (supra), taking into consideration Section 3 of the Central Sales Tax Act, and has been affirmed up to the Hon ble Apex Court, which fact is not in dispute. As such, only the wordings of Section 3 shall not be the guiding factor in the present case. The other attending factors as well as the provisions of the law are also to be looked into, and it has been held in the similar circumstances in Laxmi Hard Coke case (supra), that only the issuance of road permit in Form XXVIII-B cannot be the deciding factor whether th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of the petitioner relating to the four points as detailed in the letter dated 10.01.2002. Faced with this situation, we find that neither the impugned assessment order, nor the impugned Judgement passed by the Tribunal, can be sustained in the eyes of law, as they have held the transactions in question to be inter-State sales, only on the basis of the road permits issued by the petitioner firm. As such, both these impugned order / Judgement cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 17.In view of the aforesaid discussions, we, hereby, set aside the assessment order dated 11.01.2009, as contained in Annexure-1 to the writ application, as also the impugned Judgement dated 05.12.2017, passed by the Commercial Taxes Tribunal, Ranchi, in Revision Case No.DN-106 of 2012. We hereby, remand the matter back to the Assessing Authority, to determine the liability of Central Sales Tax of the petitioner afresh, after satisfying itself on the four points, detailed in letter dated 10.01.2002, as brought on record as Annexure-B to the counter-affidavit, filed by the respondent State. In case, after determining the aforesaid issue, if it is found by the Assessing Authority that the transactions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
