9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 976X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e second respondent. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the assessee challenging the order passed by the first respondent in Tribunal Appeal No.114 of 1994 dated 22.12.2003. 3. We need not labour much to decide the correctness of the order passed by the first respondent, as, in the assessee's own case, an identical issue was considered by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the decision reported in (1999) 112 STC 300. The said decision went in favour of the petitioner - assessee holding that the sale was an inter-state sale under Section 3(a) of the Act. The relevant portions of the said judgment in the assessee's own case read thus : "6. In the case of Dharangadhara Trading Co. Ltd. [1988] 70 STC 92, the Suprem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see would fall under section 3(a) of the Act. 7. The case of the assessee under Subsection (b) of section 3 that the sale was effected, by transfer of documents of title though prima facie supported by the fact that the lorry receipts were handed over to the assessee after the goods had been placed on board the carrier under section 2(4) of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930, delivery of the documents of title can be completed by mere delivery and not necessarily by way of endorsement we are not inclined to accept the assessee's case under section 3(b). The goods transported under the consignment note belonged to the assessee and not to its vendor, as the property in the goods passed on to the assessee at the time the goods were delivered to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n would squarely applicable to the assessee's case for the assessment year under consideration also. However, the Tribunal committed an error in not correctly noting the ultimate relief for the assessment year 1980-81. In fact, in the last sentence of the said judgment, it was held that the order of the Tribunal levying tax on second inter-state sale effected by the assessee could not be sustained and was therefore set aside. Had the Tribunal noted this last sentence, the relief that should have been granted to the assessee was to allow the appeal and not to dismiss the same. This would be sufficient to interfere with the impugned order. 5. Further, we may note that in the assessee's own case, an identical issue was the subject mat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent Circle, Chennai to give effect to the orders of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, refund the excess amount without delay and adjust the amount against the future demand with the consent of the dealer. Accordingly, consequential orders were passed by the Assessing Officer on 31.10.2000 and 10.11.2000 for the assessment years 1981-82 and 1982-83. 7. The above factors will clearly show that the Department was bound by the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the assessee's own case namely (1999) 112 STC 300. Hence, we have no hesitation to hold that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is incorrect. 8. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The second responden ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
