9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 707X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Even if the sale is taken as transit sale by M/s. Arihant Industrial Equipment to Bhushan Thukral, Govt. contractor, can it be taken as inter-State sale for the purpose of tax? - HELD THAT:- 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 in the issues of absence of documents, whether the sale was in transit or whether M/s. Arihant Industrial Equipment had accepted any price of sale from M/s. Bhushan Thukral. He was only required to see the documents that it was a case of inter-State sale which in the present case is not in dispute as the goods were travelled from Nasik to Amritsar. In M/S THYSSEN KRUPP ELEVATOR (INDIA) PVT. LTD. VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER [ 2010 (9) TMI 873 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] , the goods were being transported from Maharashtra to State of Punjab. The goods were detained on the ground that the transaction in question was clearly of intra-State sale in the State ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dhiana is registered under the Punjab VAT Act 2005 with TIN No. 03791052117 and this No. was also mentioned on each Invoice and Goods Receipts. The goods vehicle bearing No. RJ-14-2G-8183 loaded with electrical goods and driven by Rajinder Singh reached ICC, Shambhu (Import) on 01.08.2006. The driver incharge of the vehicle had produced following documents:- 1) Invoice No. 0425 dated 21.7.2006 issued by M/s C G Lucy Switchgear Ltd. F-10 MIDC, Ambad Nasik in favour of the above dealer for Rs. 3,38,000/- along with GR No. 343438 dated 21.7.2006 issued by M/s Associated Road Carriers Limited, Kolkata for the transportation of goods from Nasik to Amritsar. 2) Invoice No. 0426 dated 21.7.2006 issued by M/s C G Lucy Switchgear Ltd. F-10 MIDC, Ambad Nasik in favour of the above dealer for Rs. 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 Ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he 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/s. Bhushan Thukral were not genuine and there was an attempt to evade tax. Learned counsel for the appellant has referred to the judgment passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in A G Projects and Technologies Ltd. vs. State of Karnataka (2009) 19 VST 239 (SC), decided on 11.12.2008 on the proposition that whether the sale is inter-State or an intra- State, has to be examined in the light of Section 3 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and, therefore, it is a mixed question of fact and law. He has further referred to a Division Bench judgment passed by this Court in CWP- 15705-2010 titled as M/s. Thyssen Krupp Elevator (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Punjab and another, decided on 27.09.2010 on the proposition that when the goods were being brought in State of Punjab and was accompanied by invoices and the nature of transaction was inter-State sale and taxes had been paid in the State from where movement of the goods started, the Excise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... transit to M/s. Bhushan Thukral. The GRs were self in account of Crompton Greaves Ltd. and in the GRs there was mentioning of M/s. Arihant Industrial Equipment, Amritsar. The Tribunal held that if the sale made by M/s. Arihant Industrial Equipment to M/s. Bhushan Thukral was to be treated as transit sale, then first these facts would be endorsed in favour of M/s. Arihant Industrial Equipment and then 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. C.G. Lucy Switchgear Limited. The short ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
