Back
1997 Supreme(AP) 854
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : J.CHELAMESWAR, P.B.MISHRA, S.S.M.QUADRI
A.P.Gas Power Corporation Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Assistant Commercial Tax Officer - Respondent
Decided On : 09-09-97
Headnote:
Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 - Sections 5, 6, 7 and 8 - Supply or Transfer of Goods - Purchase Equipment for Electricity Generation - Petitioner in these two writ petitions is Gas Power Corporation Limited represented by its Manager - It is also an assessee on rolls of Commercial Tax Officer respondent No - 2 herein - Corporation entered into a contract with Corporation respondent No - 3 for supply erection and commissioning of gas/steam turbines for generation of power - Sumitomo it is stated has supplied certain equipment parts and components procuring them from suppliers outside State of Andhra Pradesh and effected transit sales to Corporation - It is in respect of such purchases by Corporation that it proposes to issue C form - As it claims to enjoy exemption it complains that first respondent Assistant Commercial Tax Officer did not respond to its request made which was reiterated - It is further submitted that Commercial Tax Officer second respondent herein issued a letter turning down request for supply of C form - Legality of said notice is assailed by Corporation – Held, A combined reading of said rules discloses that when any dealer during inter-State trade or commerce sells to a registered dealer other than Government goods of description referred to he shall be liable to pay tax at 4 per cent on turnover of said goods - Those goods are goods which are specified in certificate of registration referred to which are intended for resale by him subject to rules made thereunder - Directs that every registered dealer shall apply to notified authority and obtain from him adequate number of forms of declaration C forms for use by him at time of receipt or purchase of goods as mentioned on payment of costs and on production of receipt or challan in proof of such payment along with application - Under rules a registered dealer who purchased goods in course of inter-State trade or commerce is entitled to issue a single declaration form to cover two or more purchasers - Enjoins upon every registered dealer duty to maintain register in form showing a true and correct account of such C forms and allied matters - Order Accordingly.
( 2 ) AT the time when the interlocutory applications in these writ petitions came up for hearing it was felt that the arguments in both the WPMPs as well as the main writ petitions are the same, so the learned counsel appearing on both sides addressed the arguments in the main writ petitions.
( 3 ) THE second respondent filed counter-affidavit stating, inter alia, that in the application in form A under the CST Act filed by the petitioner the details of the goods ordinarily purchased by it are noted as "procurement of equipment for electricity generation" in clauses (a) and (c) in column 16 and based on that, form B certificate was granted to the petitioner. It is submitted that on the strength of the registration certificate, the petitioner is entitled to purchase equipment for electricity generation, but not the spares, tools, stores and accessories, therefore, they are not entitled to receive C form declaration. It is further submitted that admittedly the machinery, plant, etc. , was made available through various contractors by M/s. Sumitomo Corporation, Secunderabad, who is the main contractor for erection of the power plant at Vijjeswaram. On the ground that the said transaction amounts to sale in transit, for which the petitioner has to issue "c" declaration forms to enable the contractor to get exemption of tax on the sales of goods effected to the petitioner in transit, the petitioner claims supply of C forms. The petitioner failed to furnish sufficient account or evidence of endorsement, i. e. , invoice in its favour. Further, the petitioner also says that the goods purchased by it have been entrusted again to the seller under a bailment agreement for erection of the project but the agreement of the petitioner cannot justify any bailment of the goods. The petitioner also stated that he had not sold the goods to the third respondent. The agreement relied upon by the petitioner is made on turn-key basis only and the petitioner is trying to camouflage the transactions of supp
