2009 Supreme(Mad) 463
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAVIRAJA PANDIAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.P.S. JANARTHANA RAJA
The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by the Joint Commissioner (CT)(SMR)
Versus
M/s Sun Paper Mill Ltd & Another
W.P. No.5114 of 2005 and W.P.M.P.No.5643 of 2005
Decided on: 09-02-2009
For the Petitioner: Haja Naziruddin, Special Government Pleader (Taxes).
For the Respondents:Ramani, S.C. for Chandran, Advocate.
Headnote:
Inter-State Sales - Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 - Section 3(a), Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 - Section 3(a) - 3(a), 5(3) - The judgment discusses the interpretation and application of Section 3(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and Section 3(a) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. The court emphasizes that the movement of goods from one state to another, occasioned by the contract of sale, is crucial in determining inter-State sales. It highlights that the stoppage and conversion of goods do not alter the nature of the transaction, and the transaction involved is deemed to be an inter-State sale.
Fact of the Case:
The assessee, a public limited company engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of papers, claimed certain sales as inter-state sales. The assessing Officer rejected their claim, leading to a series of appeals and orders. The Revenue filed a writ petition to quash the order passed by the Tribunal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the writ petition was filed belatedly and dismissed it on the ground of unexplained delay and laches. It also held that the transaction involved is only an inter-State sale, emphasizing the crucial role of the movement of goods from one state to another occasioned by the contract of sale.
Issues: 1. Unexplained delay and laches in filing the writ petition. 2. Whether the transaction is an inter-State sale.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that in determining inter-State sales, the movement of goods from one state to another, occasioned by the contract of sale, is crucial. It also highlighted that stoppage and conversion of goods do not alter the nature of the transaction.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed on the ground of unexplained delay and laches. The court held that the transaction involved is only an inter-State sale and therefore, there is no merit in the writ petition.
P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, J.
The Writ Petition is filed for the issuance of writ of certiorari to call for the records on the file of the second respondent pertaining to the order dated 28.03.2003 made in T.C.A.No.141 of 1999 and quash the same as illegal.
2. The brief facts are as follows:
The assessee/first respondent is a public limited company, which is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of papers. They are dealers in newsprint and assessed on the file of the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Ambasamudram, in TNGST 802529/93-94. The relevant assessment year is 1993-1994. The assessee has effected sales of newsprint to the tune of Rs. 25,07,671/-during the assessment year to Tvl. Kerala Sabdam and Tvl. Kollam Muthari, Kollam and claimed that those sales as inter-state sales. But the assessing Officer rejected their claim on the ground that the newsprints sold to them were not moved to other State. They were moved only to Sivakasi and later the said newsprints were converted into news magazine in Pioneer Press (P) Limited, Sivakasi and then the same were moved to Kerala. Therefore, the assessing Officer assessed the said turn over under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. Aggrieved by that order, the assessee has filed an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner(CT), Tirunelveli in CST AP No.345/95. The Commissioner allowed the appeal on the ground that the movement of goods from the State of Tamil Nadu to Kerala would certainly form an inter-state transaction. Later, the Joint Commissioner (CT)(SMR) suo motu revised the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and treated the transaction as local sales and held as follows:
"Looking at the above circumstances, it is found that the goods moved from the assesee to Sivakasi as a result of the sale. What happened later is that the concern of the assessee had no connection what so ever after the dispatch of paper to given basis. What moved out of the state were only news magazines and not news print with which the assessee is concerned. Therefore, the sales would fall under the local Act,s purview and the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner is not proper, therefore, liable to be set aside. Appellate Assistant Commissioners order is set aside and the Assessing Officers order is restored."
Aggrieved by that order, the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal, Chennai, in T.C.A.No.141 of 1999. The Tribunal, by its order dated 28.03.2003, while allowing the appeal, held that all the sale transaction would fall within the ambit of Section 3(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and therefore, they are inter-state sales, which do not attract the provisions of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 or Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. Aggrieved by that order, the Revenue has filed the present writ petition to quash the order passed by the second respondent/Tribunal.
.3. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the revenue submitted that the newsprint were despatched to Sivakasi by the assessee. Even though the destinations were mentioned as Calicut Trivandrum, Tiruchur and other places in Kerala, in the bills, admittedly, the news prints were despatched to Sivakasi by the assessee as per the instruction of the purchasers from Kerala. So there is no inter-state sale. Thereafter only the goods were transferred from Sivakasi to Kerala. It is further contended that the goods were unloaded and after printing, the magazines were despatched by the printers from Sivakasi to Kerala. Therefore, the transaction is nothing but local sales when the goods were delivered to the printer at Sivakasi, the agent of the buyers. He further contended that the sale was actually concluded within the State of Tamil Nadu by delivery of the goods to the buyers agent within the State itself and the buyer or their agents transported the goods thereafter to Kerala. Therefore, such a movement to the other State