9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 707X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the VAT Tribunal, Punjab. The facts of the case are that the appellant is a dealer engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of electrical goods, electrical fittings at Mumbai and has branches all over India including Jalandhar. The appellant M/s. Crompton Greaves Ltd. purchased EFS KV.350 MVA, Oil type, Extensible Fuse Switchgear from M/s. CG Lucy Switchgears Limited, Nasik and the same were sold to M/s. Arihant Industrial Equipment, Armitsar and the selling dealer was asked to issue Invoice and GR in the name of M/s. Arihant Industrial Equipment, Amritsar in the account of the appellant. The appellant had placed on record following three invoices: 1. Invoice No. 425 dated 21.07.2006 for Rs.3,38,000/- (Annexure A-1). 2. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. 4,29,000/- along with GR No. 343439 dated 21.7.2006 issued by M/s Associated Road Carriers Limited, Kolkata for the transportation of goods from Nasik to Amritsar; and 3) Invoice No. 0427 dated 21.7.2006 issued by M/s CG Lucy Switchgear Ltd. F-10 MIDC, Ambad Nasik in favour of the above dealer for Rs. 4,29,000/- along with GR No. 343440 dated 21.7.2006 issued by M/s Associated Road Carriers Limited, Kolkata for the transportation of goods from Nasik to Amritsar. The ETO on duty found that the goods were to be delivered to M/s. Bhushan Thukral Govt. Contractor at Ludhiana who is also the registered dealer in the State of Punjab. The supply was in account of M/s. Crompton Greaves Limited. There was no GR or any other documents for del ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Crompton Greaves Limited. Sale invoices and GRs were in favour of M/s. Arihant Industrial Equipment of Amritsar. 4. The words 'delivered at M/s. Bhushan Thukral, Government Contractor' were written on the invoices and TIN No. written as 07460256008 was struck of and then TIN No. 033791052117 was mentioned. 5. In the GRs some words account Bhushan Thukral was written in hand and he was stated to be based at Ludhiana. 6. There was no evidence that M/s. Arihant Industrial Equipment was consignee of the goods and had made any sale in transit to M/s. Bhushan Thukral. 7. There were no proper sale documents or endorsement on the documents to show inter-State sale. Finally, the Tribunal held that the documents in favour of M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ough truck and when it reached ICC, Shambhu for giving information as per Section 51 of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005, the goods were detained. The detention of the goods were being justified on the ground that the order of sale was facilitated by Vicky Scientific Company and that the price had not been received. The Division Bench held that whether the sale was facilitated by Vicky Scientific Company or purchase order was directly made by Guru Nanak Dev University, the nature of the transaction would be inter-State sale. A cost of Rs.50,000/- was imposed on the concerned officer for passing the impugned order. Learned counsel for the respondents has argued that the documents did not show anywhere that the consignee of the goods M/s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hen by M/s. Arihant Industrial Equipment to M/s. Bhushan Thukral with proper endorsement. Both the above said dealers were based in Punjab. There were no documents to show that it was a transit sale by M/s. Arihant Industrial Equipment to M/s. Bhushan Thukral during the course of inter-State trade. There were no proper transit sale documents or endorsement on the documents, otherwise this sale would be inter-State and it was liable for tax. The Tribunal upheld the penalty imposed under Section 51(7)(b) of the Punjab VAT Act by the designated officer. In the facts of the present case, it is not in dispute that the goods had travelled from Nasik as it is evident from the invoices which were with the driver and they had been issued by M/s. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e travelled from Delhi was enough to give a finding that it was a case of inter- State sale. The order for purchase could have been directly made by the Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar to the petitioner or through medium of another person. In either case the nature of transaction did not cease to be in the course of inter-State sale. Hence, writ petition was allowed. In the facts of the present case as well, the goods were purchased from M/s. Crompton Greaves Ltd. and it was M/s. Arihant Industrial Equipment, Amritsar who had purchased the goods from M/s. Crompton Greaves Ltd. and during the course of transit of goods, the goods were delivered to M/s. Bhushan Thukral, Govt. contractor at Ludhiana. The detaining officer need not to go ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
