High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
C.S.T. v. T.E.Works - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 43 of 1992  RD-AH 497 (5 December 2003)
SALES TAX REVISION NO.43 OF 1992
SALES TAX REVISION NO.44 OF 1992
The Commissioner Sales Tax, U.P., Lucknow. ....Applicant
Triveni Engineering Works, Naini, Allahabad ....Opp.Party
Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.
These two revisions are directed against the order dated 19.08.1991 relating to the assessment years 1975-76 and 76-77.
Following question has been raised in these two revisions:
"Whether the Sales Tax Tribunal was legally justified to hold the disputed sales as an inter-state transaction even though the facts on record reveal otherwise.?"
Opp. party entered into a contract with various Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Limited for the supply of machineries and equipments at various places in the State of U.P. In pursuance of the said contract, opposite party supplied machineries and equipments. Claim of the applicant was that some of the machineries were self manufactured machineries and some of the machineries were purchased from outside the State of U.P. and during the course of movements of goods, sales were made by transfer of documents i.e. by endorsing builties in favour of the customers and the delivery of the goods were taken by buyers. Claim of the applicant was that transaction was covered under Section 6(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as "Act") and for claiming the exemption, filed Form-E-1 and Form-C as required under Section 6(2) of the Act read with Rule 12. Assessing Authority rejected the claim of the dealer mainly on the ground that under clause (3) of the agreement there was a condition that the buyer shall pay aforesaid contract price and war phages and damages shall be borne by the seller. By this clause, it has been inferred that the opposite party had to give the delivery of goods at site. Assessing Authority held the transaction as intra-state sales and rejected the claim of opposite party of inter-state sales. Opposite party filed appeals before Assistant Commissioner (J) Sales Tax, Allahabad, which were allowed. First Appellate Authority held that sale was made by transfer of documents under Section 3-b of the Act and being subsequent inter-state sales under Section 6(2) of the Act covered by Form-E-1 and Form-C not liable to tax. Commissioner of Sales Tax filed appeals before Tribunal, which were rejected. Being aggrieved by the order of Tribunal, present revisions have been filed.
Heard Sri B.K.Pandey, learned Standing Counsel and Sri K.Saxena, learned counsel for the opposite party.
Perusal of the assessment order shows that it has not been disputed that dealer had endorsed the builty as claimed. Assessing Authority had inferred the delivery at site by the opposite party only on the basis of clause (3) of the agreement, which contemplated that the buyer shall pay contract price and war phages and damages shall be borne by seller. No specific material has been brought on record to show that the builties were not endorsed and the delivery of the goods were not taken by buyers but by the opposite party. First Appellate Authority had categorically stated that sales were made by the endorsement of builty which was prepared in the name of self in favour of customers and the delivery of the goods were taken by buyers. First Appellate Authority further referred certificates given by the buyers, in which it has been confirmed that delivery of the goods were taken by them. First Appellate Authority had also stated that in the assessment year 1973-74 also similar nature of supply were treated as intra-state sales while in appeal it was treated as inter-state sales and the order of assessing authority was set aside. Tribunal had affirmed the finding of first appellate authority.
Learned Standing Counsel is not able to assail the findings recorded by first appellate authority that the builties were endorsed by the dealer/opposite party in favour of the customers during the movement of goods and the delivery of goods were taken by the customers. In this view of the matter, finding of first appellate authority confirmed by Tribunal are concluded by finding of fact and is neither perverse nor without any basis. In the circumstances, I do not find any error in the order of Tribunal and the first appellate authority treating the transaction as inter-state sales.
In the result, both the revisions are fails and are accordingly, dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.