9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 125X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uments and evidence were already furnished before the Assessing Authority himself, furnishing of the same again before the Appellate Authorities was not at all called for. And therefore, on this premise, the Appellate Authority should not have confirmed the finding of the Assessing Authority that the Assessee is liable to pay tax under the Central Sales Tax Act. There are no merit in the petition - petition dismissed. - W.P.No.36978 of 2002 - - - Dated:- 21-1-2020 - Dr. Justice Vineet Kothari And Mr. Justice R. Suresh Kumar For the Petitioner : Ms.G.Dhana Madhri, Govt. Advocate for Commercial Tax ORDER DR. VINEET KOTHARI, J. The learned Tribunal, by its impugned order dated 22.5.2001, allowed the Petition filed b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ectly. The learned Advocate as contended that like the advance tax payment by customers in other States, the transport charges have also been sometimes made to appellants. From the perusal of the records and the recovered it is seen that there is no evidence even in the recovered records to show that the goods have been received by the customers in other States directly from the Head Office. Even the transport charges payment will not decide the issue. The other evidences such as stock transfer memo, delivery note etc., clearly proved that the goods were despatched by the Madras Office only to the branch office. In lieu of the absence of the materials or evidence, it is to be decided whether the appellants have decided the burden of proof c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 193 of 2001, dated 9.12.2019), this court has allowed the Writ Petition filed by the Assessee. The relevant portion of the said order is also quoted below for ready reference:- 3. The learned counsel for the Assessee Mr.N.Murali submitted that in similar circumstances, the Division Bench of this court in the case of the State of Tamil Nadu Represented by The Deputy Commissioner (Court) Chennai (North) Division vs. Tvl.P.M.P. Iron and Steel India Ltd., (2012-13 (18) TNCTJ 76) , held as follows:- 5.The mere fact that the goods despatched by the assessee and received by the agents have been sold on the very same day after their arrival or the next day itself cannot be a ground to hold that the transactions are inter-state sales. Fur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... next day or any day immediately thereafter, it is not a ground to treat the stock transfer/ branch transfer as an inter-state sale. The necessary incident for holding the sale as an inter-state sale, inviting imposition of tax under the Central Sales Tax Act is the movement of goods from one State to another, in pursuance of a pre-existing contract with the seller. Therefore, merely on the assumption or presumption of any such kind of pre-existing contract, the Assessing Authority could not have imposed the tax under the provision of Central Sales Tax Act. Since necessary documents and evidence were already furnished before the Assessing Authority himself, furnishing of the same again before the Appellate Authorities was not at all called ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
