SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1977 Supreme(Mad) 219

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SETHURAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BALASUBRAHMANYAN
State of Tamil Nadu - Appellant
Versus
Bombay Metal Depot - Respondent
Case No : Tax Case No. 292 of 1974
Decided On : 19 April 1977

Advocates Appeared:C. Natarajan, Advocate.

The State from which the movement of the goods commenced is the State which can levy and collect the tax from the assessee, as per the proviso to section 9(1) of the Central Sales Tax Act.

Headnote:

CENTRAL SALES TAX ACT - SECTION 3(B) - SALE OF GOODS - TRANSFER OF DOCUMENTS OF TITLE - APPROPRIATION OF GOODS - JURISDICTION TO TAX - STATE FROM WHICH MOVEMENT OF GOODS COMMENCED - PROVISO TO SECTION 9(1) - APPLICABILITY.

Fact of the Case:

The assessee, a dealer in non-ferrous metals, sold goods to the Government of Kerala. The goods were purchased from a Bombay party and despatched from Bombay to Kerala. The assessee claimed that the sales were not taxable in Tamil Nadu as they were inter-State sales and the goods were not within the State of Tamil Nadu at the time of appropriation.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the sales were effected by transfer of documents of title to the goods during their movement from one State to another and, therefore, fell within the scope of section 3(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act. The court further held that the State from which the movement of the goods commenced was the State which could levy and collect the tax from the assessee, as per the proviso to section 9(1) of the Act.

Issues: 1. Whether the sales were effected by transfer of documents of title to the goods during their movement from one State to another? 2. Whether the State from which the movement of the goods commenced was the State which could levy and collect the tax from the assessee?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted section 3(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act to mean that for a sale to fall within the scope of this provision, it is necessary to be established that the same was effected by transfer of documents of title to the goods during their movement from one State to another. 2. The court interpreted the proviso to section 9(1) of the Act to mean that in the case of a sale of goods during their movement from one State to another, being a sale subsequent to the first sale in respect of the same goods, the tax shall be levied and collected in the State from which the registered dealer effecting the subsequent sale obtained or, as the case may be, could have obtained the form prescribed for the purposes of clause (a) of sub-section (4) of section 8 in connection with the purchase of such goods.

Final Decision: The court held that the sales were taxable in Tamil Nadu and dismissed the assessee's tax revision case.

Judgment :-

SETHURAMAN, J.

This tax revision case has been filed under section 38 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act by the State of Madras against the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 4th December, 1973, holding the assessee to be not liable to tax under the Central Sales Tax Act on a turnover of Rs. 7, 39, 353.14. The assessee is a dealer in non-ferrous metals. In the course of the assessment proceedings the assessing officer noticed that the assessee had effected sales to the Executive Engineer (Public Health), Central Stores, Ernakulam, Cochin-16, on several dates. The assessee sought exemption from tax on the sales on the ground that these sales were effected by transfer of documents within the meaning of section 3(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act and that he had filed E-I and D forms in respect of the same. The assessing officer found that the filing of D forms from the Government departments did not satisfy the requirements of the Act as the State Government departments were not registered dealers. Since all the sales were to the Government departments, he issued notices to the assessee asking for its objection to the proposed assessment of the said turnover. The assessee pointed out that there was some pending legislation before the Parliament and wanted the assessment to be deferred till the passing of the said amendment. It questioned also the jurisdiction of the State to assess the said amount to tax. The assessing officer rejected these contentions. He found that the assessee entered into a contract with another entity in Bombay and that the Bombay entity despatched the goods to the respective executive engineers. He considered the sales to be taxable in this State under section 3(b). The assessee appealed and the appellate authority was of the view that the assessee had sold goods purchased from Maharashtra while on movement from Maharashtra to Kerala attracting liability to tax under section 2(b). The assessee, thereafter, filed a second appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal came to the following conclusions :1. The sale fell within section 3(a) and the State of Tamil Nadu had no jurisdiction to assess the inter-State sale since the goods were not within the State of Tamil Nadu at the time of appropriation;

2. Section 3(b) would ordinarily apply to what is commonly known as "bilti" sales in mercantile practice. These sales not being such sales did not fall within the meaning of section 3(b) of the Act; and

3. Even if it was held that the sale fell within the meaning of section 3(b) of the Act, section 3(a) would prevail in this particular case and this State should not tax them, because the goods were not within this State at the time of appropriation.

It is in this view that the Tribunal cancelled the assessment with reference to the said amount of turnover. The State now contests the grant of exemption from liability to tax with reference to the said sum of Rs. 7, 39, 353.14.

The only question that is raised in the present tax revision case is whether the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that section 3(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act did not apply to the turnover in question. Section 3(b) to the extent relevant runs as follows :

"3. A sale or purchase of goods shall be deemed to take place in the course of inter-State trade or commerce if the sale or purchase -

(a) ...................

(b) is effected by a transfer of documents of title to the goods during their movement from one State to another.

Explanation 1. - Where goods are delivered to a carrier or other bailee for transmission, the movement of the goods shall, for the purposes of clause (b), be deemed to commence at the time of such delivery and terminate at the time when delivery is taken from such carrier or bailee." *

So the short point for consideration is whether there was a sale effected by transfer of documents of title to the goods during their movement from one State to another. This transfer











Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top