9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 596X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t Sale is deemed to have been rejected, then the transaction would fall under the purview of Section 3(a) of the C.S.T. Act and since, admittedly, the entire tax in respect of the aforesaid sale falling under Section 3 (a) of the C.S.T. Act has been discharged by the petitioner to the respective State Governments, no further tax liability can be imposed by the State of Jharkhand upon the petitioner. At the cost of repetition, there is misinterpretation and misreading of the judgment delivered by the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of A G Projects (Supra). The learned tribunal has committed an error by wrongly appreciating that there was pre-determined or pre decided contract of sale between the petitioner and the dealer of the goods at the point of time prior to the sale of goods between the manufacturer of the goods from other inter-state and the dealer of the goods. Even otherwise, the law is now well settled that the tribunal was not supposed to decide an issue which was not the case of the revenue. Decided in favor of assessee. - W.P.(T) No. 3648 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 8-12-2022 - HON BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH AND HON BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN F ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction pertaining to transit sales. Apart from the above, Petitioner also furnished following documents before the learned Assessing Officer, namely:- (i) Copies of purchase orders for purchase of goods issued by M/s. Tata Steel Limited to the Petitioner. (ii) Copies of Invoices of the venders from whom the Petitioner had purchased the goods in question including copies of Delivery Challans. (iii) Road Permits being JVAT 504G. (iv) Lorry Receipts, and (v) Copies of Invoices raised by the Petitioner to M/s. Tata Steel Limited However, Assessment Order was passed by Assessing Officer, wherein primarily following two transactions, tax were levied upon the Petitioner under the provisions of CST Act:- (i) Levy of tax on transaction of inter-State sales made by Petitioner in pursuance of execution of works contract for an amount of Rs. 31,23,66,171.21/-. This issue is not the subject matter of adjudication before this Court as the Revisional Court has allowed the Revision Petition bearing No. JR 167 of 2015 to this extent. (ii) Rejection of claim of Petitioner of transit sales under Section 3(b) read with Section 6(2) of CST Act and consequential levy ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arded by its various clients. He further submits that the petitioner also held transaction with Tata Steel Ltd. through different works contract vide works contract dated 24.12.2009, 02.02.2010 and 18.03.2010 and supplied the goods to Tata Steel Ltd. and it is claimed by the petitioner that these goods were supplied to Tata Steel Ltd. in course of movement of goods. He submits that after regular assessment proceeding the Assessing Officer imposed tax @ 12.5% under JVAT treating them inter-state sales on both kinds of transaction involving inter-state sales and transit sales and the petitioner plea for exemption in the light of Section 3 (a) of CST Act read with Section 6(2) was negated which was also affirmed by the JCCT (Appeal) vide its order dated 19.03.2015 who rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner company. Being aggrieved, the petitioner challenged the order passed by the JCCT appeal before the tribunal and the tribunal partly allowed the appeal filed by the Assessee after relying the Judgment passed in the case of A G Projects Technologies Ltd. Versus State of Karnataka reported in (2009) 2 SCC 326. Learned counsel for the revenue further submits that there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0 of the revision petition has admitted that there were already three contracts dated 24.12.2009, 2.2.2010 and 18.03.2010 (Annexure-11) in existence with Tata Steel for supply and delivery of goods. There is further admission that in pursuance of these pre-existing contracts petitioner placed orders for purchase of goods beyond the limits of Jharkhand. In para-41 of the petition it is also admitted that the petitioner had issued instruction to the sellers outside Jharkhand for direct delivery at the buyer s destination i.e. Tata Steel. Even name of Tata Steel Ltd. appears on the sale invoices. 38. We fail to understand how inconsistent pleas could be taken by the petitioner when the law is explicit on the point that subsequent sale during transit shall not be preceded by any preexisting contract. After going through the aforesaid findings, it transpires that the learned tribunal has completely failed to appreciate the ratio of the Judgment of the Hon ble Apex Court rendered in the case of A G Projects (supra) and merely on the basis of an observation as contained in para-13 of the said judgment proceeded to reject the claim of Transit Sale of the petitioner. 8. At t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le as per Section 6(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act 1956). Sale of goods between this petitioner and the dealer will come into existence, when the dealer puts an endorsement during transit of the goods in favour of this petitioner. This endorsement made by the dealer of the goods converts agreement to sale into sale or by this endorsement it can be said that present sale of future goods is converted into sale . Present sale of future goods is also an agreement to sale (as per Section 6(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956). Thus, by no stretch of imagination it can be said that there was pre-determined or pre-decided contract of sale between petitioner and the dealer of the goods, prior to the purchase of the goods by the dealer from the manufacturer of the goods (from another State). Sale between petitioner and the dealer comes into existence only upon the endorsement made by this dealer of the goods, during transit of the goods. It appears that the respondent-State authorities has lost sight of the correct meaning of: (a) Agreement to sale which is in pre-existence between petitioner and the dealer of the goods. (b) Present sale of future goods is also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... logic in giving such a finding without otherwise questioning the authenticity of forms or certificates. It has further been held by the tribunal that the tax authorities nowhere have disputed about submissions of these forums or certificates rather; have doubted their genuineness only on the ground that bills were raised after four to six months after delivery of goods and thus held that there is no rationale or any logic in giving such finding. However, ultimately the tribunal has misdirected itself by misinterpreting the judgment passed in the case of A G Projects (Supra). 12. Having regard to the facts of the case and the discussions made hereinabove the instant writ application is allowed and the order passed by learned Commercial Taxes Tribunal, Ranchi vide order dated 19.05.2016/ order dated 19.03.2015 passed by learned Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeal), Jamshedpur division and the Assessment Order dated 15.03.2014 passed by Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes Urban Circle, Jamshedpur are, hereby, quashed and set aside, so far as rejection of claim of Petitioner of transit sales under Section 3(b) read with Section 6(2) of CST Act and consequential ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
