9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (2) TMI 312X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inter-state sale, and thus not subject to central sales tax.
The order dated 28.12.2015 passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board in Appeal No. 2210 of 2014 which has been assailed in this appeal deserves to be set aside and is set aside. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hich came up for consideration in the decided appeals has also come up for consideration in this appeal. The Master Agreement entered into between the appellant and the Corporation at Patna is identical. 7. After a detailed consideration of the clauses of the Master Agreement, the Liquor Policy and the decisions on which reliance was placed, the Tribunal recorded the following findings in the order dated 21.10.2024: "46. It would now be appropriate to examine the facts of the present case in the light of the provisions of the Liquor Policy, the Master Agreement, and the License issue to the appellants. 47. As noticed above, the appellants manufacture beer at the breweries in the State of Rajasthan. The State of Bihar and the State of Jharkhand have created Corporations to facilitate and regulate retail sale of beer in their States. 48. Under the Liquor Policy, the Corporation is the wholesaler for all kinds of liquor, including beer. A manufacturer desirous of supplying beer to the Corporation for subsequent distribution shall have to submit documents, including the Master Agreement. The Corporation issues OFS on the depots of Carlsberg in the State of Bihar based on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so has the right to forthwith terminate any or all OFS placed on the manufacturer and forfeit the deposits on certain conditions. The manufacturer has to deliver the beer at a price indicated by the Corporation but payment for the beer delivered shall be made only after the disposal of beer. 50. Clause 5A of 19C License requires Carlsberg to maintain minimum stock of liquor at its depots as prescribed by the Commissioner from time to time and to recoup within 7 days in case the stock goes below the minimum limits. 51. The decision of the Allahabad High Court in Central Distillery and Breweries, notices that though the manufacturing unit of the revisionist was situated at Meerut in the State of Uttar Pradesh but as it was required to maintain a buffer stock of atleast two trucks without any guarantee of any purchase by the Delhi Administration, it established a warehouse at Delhi from where liquor would be supplied as and when the Delhi Administration placed orders. The movement of the goods from Meerut in the State of Uttar Pradesh to Delhi was, therefore, held not to be in pursuance of any transaction of sale. The sale, it was held, took place only at Delhi when an order was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e local depots of the appellants situated in the State of Bihar for supply of specified quantity of beer. The OFS have a validity period within which the goods are required to be delivered to the Corporation. Clause 10.1 of the Liquor Policy clearly provides that the supply of beer to the Corporation against OFS shall be construed as an agreement to sell under section 4(3) of the Sale of Goods Act. Clause 5A of the License also requires Carlsberg to maintain a minimum stock of liquor at its depots in the State of Bihar as prescribed by the Corporation from time to time and to recoup the stock within seven days in case it goes below the minimum limits. Carlsberg is, therefore, justified in asserting that in order to comply with the requirement of maintaining a minimum stock at the local depots in the State of Bihar and also to ensure the delivery of beer to the Corporation within the validity period prescribed in the OFS, it has to effect inter-state stock transfer of beer from its factory in the State of Rajasthan to its depots in the State of Rajasthan from time to time through Form-F, depending on estimation of market demand and that it is only when OFS is placed by the Corporati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t open for the parties to determine from time to time. None of the clauses of the Master Agreement contemplate manufacture and delivery of liquor to the depots of the Corporation from outside the State of Bihar. The clauses merely discuss the manner in which the goods are to be delivered at the depots of the Corporation and issues incidental to it. In fact, there is no reference to the manufacturing activity undertaken by the appellants. The Master Agreement merely grants an option to the Corporation to purchase goods at a subsequent date as and when required by the Corporation. The Corporation does not actually purchase or agree to purchase beer from the appellants under the Master Agreement. If the Corporation does not place OFS on the appellants, the latter cannot sue the Corporation for damages because the Master Agreement has not been breached. There is no binding obligation that the Corporation has to purchase the goods under the Master Agreement. The Master Agreement, therefore, cannot be treated to be an agreement to sell. It would, in fact, be in the nature of a standing order or a tender which does not amount to a sale or an agreement to sell. It is, therefore, clear that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
