9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 304X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d as per agreement. It has been held by the Supreme Court in M/s Bharat Electric Limited vs Union of India [ 1996 (4) TMI 419 - SUPREME COURT ] that interstate sales Tax is leviable in the state where goods are manufactured for specific purpose and also from where movement of goods takes place. In the ordinary course, the present case ought to have been transferred to the Central Sales Tax Appellate Authority, however, this Court finds that a corporate guarantee has been furnished by M/s Hindustan Level Limited for and on behalf of the petitioner in terms of the directions issued on 30.05.2005, wherein this Court directed that the guarantor shall be bound by the terms of both the affidavits which have been filed by and on behalf of the petitioner. Petition dismissed. - HON BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH Present : For the Petitioner : Mr. Sandeep Goyal, Advocate, in CWP Nos. 11972, 11988 and 12048 of 2000. For the Petitioner : Ms. Shifali Bahia, Advocate for Mr. Arjun Pratap Atma Ram, Advocate, in CWP No. 16829 of 2004. For the Respondent : Ms. Tanisha Peshawaria, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. For the States of UP and Bihar : Mr. Vir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... apart from other places. The price of the energy food supplies was fixed as per the MOU. The manner of supply fixed as per the MOU is as under:- The Government of Bihar placed firm orders on MFIL for the supply of Poshahar to it and also placed some advance money at the disposal of MFIL for the purpose, vide para II a) of the MOU. The Patna Office of MFIL placed orders on Faridabad plant of MFIL on monthly/ fortnightly basis for the supply of Poshahar. The Faridabad plant manufactured and dispatched Poshahar to Patna office. The Poshahar was inspected for quality at Patna and thereafter dispatched to various block offices of the Welfare Department of the Government of Bihar according to the instructions of the government. If delivery of Poshahar from MFIL was taken FOR at the block office level by the officers of the Welfare Department of the Government of Bihar. The bills for the supply of Poshahar to the Government of Bihar were raised by the Patna office of MFIL. 7. The said supply was treated as a sale of Poshahar from MFIL to the Government of Bihar in the course of inter-State trade originating from Haryana by the Excise Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority, Faridabad ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... les where the transfer of goods is claimed otherwise than by way of sale and the burden of proof would be discharged by the dealer if he has furnished to the assessing authority Form-F . As stated in the above mentioned paras, the methods for discharging the onus that these transactions were branch transfers and not Inter-State sales as has been envisaged under Section 6A of the CST Act, 1956 is by production of F Form. This is the conclusive proof of discharge as per Section 6A of the CST Act, 1956. Further, Section 3(a) of the Act (supra) lays down the principles of tests to be applied for determining whether a particular transaction is an Inter-State sales of goods or not and whether the movement of goods from one State to another were occasioned by contract of sale. As per the definition under Section 5 of the Sales of Goods Act, a contract of sale is made by an offer to buy or sell goods for a price and the acceptance of such offer. In a contract of sale, the title in goods passes immediately on payment of price but in an agreement to sell, the title in goods passes at the future time subject to conditions to be fulfilled thereafter. In the present case, the goods have been sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) to the Act 1956. Therefore, as such, it cannot be said that the Appellate Authority has committed any error in not issuing any direction which now is permissible under Section 22 (18) of the Act 1956. 5. However, at the same time, the State of Andhra Pradesh cannot retain the amount of central sales tax paid by the appellant on the transaction of sale effected through RSO, Vijayawada with respect to vehicles/buses sold to APSRTC. Therefore, in line with Section 22 (18) of the Act 1956, the State of Andhra Pradesh is directed to transfer to the State of Jharkhand the amount of central sales tax deposited by the appellant with the State of Andhra Pradesh with respect to transaction in question, however, subject to the appellant submitting the proof of the amount of central sales tax already paid on the transaction in question, namely, sales effected through RSO, Vijayawada with respect to vehicles/ buses sold to APSRTC treating the same as stock transfer sale. After due verification, the amount of central sales tax so paid by the appellant with respect to the aforesaid transaction be transferred to the State of Jharkhand immediately on such verification and the State of Jharkhand i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r was required to pay the same. 15. In this case on 17.05.2005, this Court passed the following order:- Mr. S. Ganesh, for the petitioner, learned senior counsel appearing submits that a fresh application, Including the corporate guarantee by Hindustan Lever Ltd.. which is 100% parent company of the petitioner, is being filed. Let him do so. A copy of the said application has already been supplied to the learned counsel for the respondents, who pray for some time to have instructions thereon. Mr. Ganesh has also brought to our notice that a notification [No. SO 327(E)] has also been issued 17.3.2005 by the Ministry of Finance, whereby on the Authority for Advance Rulings constituted under Section 245-0 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 has been declared as the Central Sales Tax Appellate Authority to settle inter-State disputes falling under Section 6A read with Section 9 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 on and from the date on which the Central Sales Tax (Amendment) Act. 2001 had come into force. Let learned counsel for the State have instructions if the issue raised in the present writ petition could be considered by the said Appellate Authority, despite the fact that the Sales Tax T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
