Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
M/S Tarsons Products Pvt. Ltd vs Additional Commissioner on 23 March, 2017
Author: Debangsu Basak
Bench: Debangsu Basak
1 23.03.2017
.
rc W.P. No.8137(W) of 2017 M/s Tarsons Products Pvt. Ltd.
Versus Additional Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, West Bengal (FTRA) & Ors.
Mr. B.P.Chakraborty
Mr. Piyal Gupta .. For the Petitioner
Mr. Abhratosh Majumder
Mr. Prithu Dudhuria
Mr. S. Mukherjee ... For the State
The petitioner assails an order dated May 18, 2016 passed by the Fast Track Revisional Authority.
Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the revisional authority had held that the consignment do not come within the purview of section 3(A) of the Central Sales Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act of 1956"). Having returned such finding the consignment has to be treated under the West Bengal Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act of 2003"). He submits that, the authority ought not to have disallowed the said Act of 1956 and Form C in respect of the subject consignment. In the factual scenario in the present case the consignment was sent by courier. The name of the consignee was written on the consignment note. The goods were delivered at the place of the consignee which is outside the State of West Bengal. Therefore, the Central Sales Tax is attracted. The revisional authority had erred in not applying such Act to the present case.
The State authorities are represented.
There is some force in the submission of the learned advocate for the petitioner that when the Central Sales Tax was disallowed the authorities ought to have proceeded to 2 adjudicate tax incidence in terms of the Act of 2003. The revisional authority has erred in not doing so.
So far as the contention that the consignment was inter state sale is concerned, I am afraid I am not in a position to agree with the petitioner. Whether or not the sale is an inter state sale or an intra state sale is a question of fact. The issue was looked into upto the revisional authority stage. The revisional authority has taken a view and has come to the finding that, it is not an inter state sale. No material has been produced to suggest therewise. The consignment note is not the only clinching evidence of a sale happening to be an inter state sale. Other ingredients of the Sale of Goods Act have to be looked to find out the place at which the delivery and the transfer of title took place of the goods. In the present case the revisional authority is of the view that the sales had happened within the State. I find no reason to take a different view.
In such circumstances the writ petition is allowed to the extent as directed herein. The authorities will look into the relevant assessment order to consider the sale to be within the Act of 2003 and adjudicate the tax liability of the petitioner accorrdingly.
W.P.No. 8137(W) of 2017 is disposed of without any order as to costs. Urgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance of the requisite formalities.
(Debangsu Basak, J.) 3