1999 (9) TMI 923 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Tribunal: Stock Transfers, Not Inter-State Sales. Freight Charges Separate. Export Sales Documents Allowed.

State of Orissa Versus IDL. Chemicals (P.) Ltd.

The Tribunal determined that the transactions were stock transfers, not inter-State sales, as there was no evidence of pre-existing sales contracts. ... - Issues Involved:1. Whether the transactions in respect of all the years under appeal are stock transfers made to the consignment agents of outside the State or inter-State sales under section 3(a) of the Central Sales Tax ActRs.2. Whether freight charges include sale price in respect of the assessment year 1990-91Rs.3. Whether the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax is justified to allow opportunity for production of wanting documents relating to export sales and to allow acceptance of declarations in form 'C' produced before him after verification by the Sales Tax OfficerRs.Detailed Analysis:1. Stock Transfers vs. Inter-State Sales:The Tribunal and various authorities examined the nature of transactions between the assessee and its consignment agents. The key determination was whether these transactions were stock transfers or inter-State sales. The Tribunal referred to previous judgments and found that the goods moved from Orissa to consignment agents outside the State were not based on pre-existing contracts of sale but were stock transfers. The Tribunal noted the absence of evidence linking the movement of goods to a concluded sale prior to the transfer. It was highlighted that the goods were transferred to consignment agents who stored and sold them as per local demand, and the sales occurred outside Orissa. The Tribunal emphasized that the methodology adopted by the assessee showed no organic link with any pre-existing contract of sale, thus supporting the claim of stock transfers.2. Freight Charges Inclusion in Sale Price:For the assessment year 1990-91, the Tribunal endorsed the view that freight charges were not part of the sale price. The Tribunal found that the contract with Coal India Ltd. was ex-Rourkela, with transit risk and insurance borne by the buyer. The invoices indicated separate charges for transportation, demonstrating two distinct contracts: one for the sale of goods and another for their transportation. This separation justified the exclusion of freight charges from the sale price.3. Opportunity for Production of Documents and Acceptance of Declarations:The Tribunal supported the Assistant Commissioner's decision to allow the assessee additional time to produce the required declaration forms and documents supporting export sales. The Tribunal found that the assessee had sought adjournments due to genuine difficulties in procuring the forms and that some forms were issued by tax authorities after the assessment date. The Tribunal agreed that sufficient cause prevented the assessee from producing the forms earlier and upheld the Assistant Commissioner's direction to accept the forms upon verification. Similarly, the Tribunal found no illegality in allowing the assessee to produce necessary documents to substantiate claims of export sales.Conclusion:The Tribunal's conclusions were based on detailed factual analysis, supporting the view that the transactions were stock transfers rather than inter-State sales, freight charges were not part of the sale price, and the assessee was justifiably allowed to produce additional documents. The applications filed by the Revenue were dismissed, confirming the Tribunal's decisions. The High Court found no infirmity in the Tribunal's factual conclusions and dismissed the applications, reiterating that the issues were factual rather than legal.