Inter-State sale classification prevailed where goods moved under buyer contracts and branch transfer claims lacked support.

Goods despatched from Madras pursuant to contracts with buyers in other States were treated as inter-State sales, because the movement of goods was linked to the purchase transactions and the authorities found that the claim of branch transfers was unsupported. The assessee's alternative plea for relief on the footing that the same turnover had already suffered sales tax in other States also failed, as there was no assessment order or reliable material proving prior taxation of the same goods, and the affidavit relied on was vague and based on the same incorrect assumption. The revisional challenge therefore failed and the Tribunal's order stood.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the turnover in question represented inter-State sales or branch transfers under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. (ii) Whether relief could be granted on the plea that the same turnover had already been subjected to sales tax in other States.

Issue (i): Whether the turnover in question represented inter-State sales or branch transfers under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.

Analysis: The goods were found to have moved from Madras pursuant to contracts with buyers in other States, and the movement of goods was linked to the purchase transactions. The factual finding recorded by the statutory authorities was that the goods were not transferred to branches as claimed, but were despatched in fulfilment of inter-State sale contracts.

Conclusion: The turnover was rightly treated as inter-State sales, and the assessee's contention of branch transfers failed.

Issue (ii): Whether relief could be granted on the plea that the same turnover had already been subjected to sales tax in other States.

Analysis: The additional ground was unsupported by any assessment order or reliable material showing that the same goods had in fact suffered Central sales tax at the assessee's hands. The affidavit relied on was held to be vague and proceeded on the same incorrect assumption that the transactions were branch transfers.

Conclusion: No relief was available on the plea of prior taxation in other States.

Final Conclusion: The revisional challenge failed, and the order of the Tribunal was left undisturbed.

---