Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.57 seconds)The Central Sales Tax Act, 1956
Section 3 in The Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Sahney Steels And Press Works Ltd. vs Income-Tax Officer on 30 May, 1984
11. Applying the principles laid down in the above decisions, the issue in dispute has to be decided. In this case it was admitted by the Area Manager Mr. B. Louis that he had collected orders from the regional distributors, who are six in number, along with the demand drafts and send them to the head office at Ahmedabad. The goods manufactured by the company were dispatched in lump sum at periodical intervals on consignments to its branch office at Secunderabad in Andhra Pradesh. When the goods are received, the Area Manager approaches it and takes the entire stock received by the branch for the purpose of distribution through the regional distributors. The said Area Manager is the common Area Manager to both the manufacturing company and the sole distributor. Though it was claimed that from the common carriers (transporters) the branch Office of the company had received the goods in question, no relevant material was placed by the assessee. The Deputy Commissioner basing on the material, such as the statement of the Area Manager Sri B. Louis, agreement entered into by the manufacturing company with Deepa Agencies, copies of the lorry receipts and statement given by Sri Adisesu, Marketing Director of Sivakrishna Marketing Limited, Hyderabad and also a copy of the Stock Transfer Memo bearing No. 859, dated June 11, 1993 furnished by the company as a sample, where it was written that the delivery address is 1-8-540, Post Office Lane, Chikkadapally, Hyderabad, where the assessee is carrying on the business, concluded that the present case is a sale to the assessee while the goods were in transit and hence the sale made by the assessee in the State was the first sale liable to the local tax. The Tribunal confirmed the said finding, as the assessee, who is in the custody of the material evidence, did not produce the same. Hence, an adverse inference was drawn. Before us, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as the present proceedings are as a result of the revisional order made by the Deputy Commissioner (CT), the burden is on the department to prove its case. Alternatively, it was contended that the assessee may be given an opportunity to produce such material to prove its case that the sale effected by the petitioner is not the first sale liable to the local tax. After considering the above contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner as all the relevant material was not brought on record to decide the issue one way or other by applying the principles as stated earlier, and in order to give another opportunity to the assessee to produce the necessary material to prove its case, we are inclined to remit the matter to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal.
State Of Tamil Nadu vs N. Ramu Bros. (Electricals) on 23 September, 1992
In the case of State of Tamil Nadu v. N. Ramu Bros (Electricals) [1993] 89 STC 481 (Mad.) where the sale of generators by the assessee obtained from outside the State and gave necessary letters of authority to the lorry office of carriers at Coimbatore to deliver the consignments to the purchasers in their doorsteps, the Madras High Court held that the sales were in the course of intra-State sales liable to local tax.
Vemula Seshaiah And Gongadi Ramappa vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 28 February, 1963
On the other hand, a division Bench of this Court in the case of Vemula Seshaiah and Gongadi Ramappa v. State of Andhra Pradesh [1963] 14 STC 730 considered where the assessee despatched the goods by rail obtaining rail receipts in his own name and when goods started on their journey to another State, endorsed the railway receipts in favour of the buyer after receiving the sale price, it was held that as the transfer was effected during the movement of the goods, the same was within the purview of Section 3(b) of the CST Act.
The Minerals And Metals Trading ... vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 15 July, 1988
In the case of Minerals and Metals Trading Corporation of India Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh [1998] 110 STC 394 (AP); (1998) 26 APSTJ 215 a division Bench of this Court considered the issue of sale by transfer of documents of title under the provisions of the CST Act and it was held that when once the bill of entry if filed and import duty is assessed then only the goods can be said to have crossed the customs frontiers of India. Any transfer of documents of title before the clearance of the goods by the customs authorities on making the assessment of the goods would amount to a sale in the course of import irrespective of the fact whether duty is paid or not and whether the goods are physically cleared from the harbour or not. Holding so, the matter was remitted to the assessing officer for making fresh assessments, after conducting the necessary enquiry as directed.
Tata Engineering And Locomotive ... vs Assistant Commissioner Of Commercial ... on 24 February, 1967
10. A perusal of the above decisions shows that in the case of Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Jamshedpur [1970] 26 STC 354 the apex Court held that though the vehicles were transferred to its stock-yards located in various other States and though there were purchase orders, the transfer was not in pursuance of a firm order of sale and the company was having full control of the vehicles till they are allotted to the dealers, and hence there was no inter-State sale. In the case of Arjan Dass Gupta & Bros. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax [1980] 45 STC 52 the Delhi High Court held that the transfer of the coal after reaching the destination by endorsing on the documents of title was an intra-State sale liable to local tax.
Bankatlal Satyanarayana Parikh & Co., ... vs Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes, ... on 20 January, 2001
The learned counsel also relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Bankatlal Satyanarayana Parikh & Co. v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes where this Court while considering the revisional jurisdiction held "Judicial dicta have also conditioned the exercise of revisional power under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act by holding that the condition precedent for initiating proceedings under Section 263(1) by the Commissioner is that Commissioner should not only record a finding that the order of the assessing officer was prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, but he should also mention in the order the material on the basis of which he has arrived at the conclusion and that non-recording the reasons by the Commissioner would vitiate any order that the Commissioner may pass in exercise of his powers under Section 263."