2009 (4) TMI 858 - AAAR - VAT and Sales Tax

Tax Appeals: Reassessment Upheld for Inter-State Sales, Verification Emphasized

The judgment allowed the appeals for the years 1985-86 and 1986-87, setting aside reassessments for consignment transactions but upholding them for branch ... - Issues Involved:1. Nature of transactions (Inter-State sales vs. stock transfers/consignment sales).2. Validity of reassessment proceedings.3. Applicability of Section 6A of the Central Sales Tax Act.4. Acceptance and verification of F forms.5. Jurisdiction and procedural correctness of the assessing authority.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Nature of Transactions (Inter-State Sales vs. Stock Transfers/Consignment Sales):The appellant, a milk producers' Co-operative Society, claimed that it sent ghee and other milk products to its branches and agents on a stock-transfer and consignment basis. The assessing authority, however, treated these transactions as inter-State sales, arguing that the goods were moved based on prior orders and full payment collected by the Tamil Nadu Milk Producers' Co-operative Federation. The judgment clarified that for transactions to be considered stock transfers, the movement of goods should not be the result of a contract of sale. In cases where the goods are sent to fulfil prior contracts, they are deemed inter-State sales, even if routed through branches or agents.2. Validity of Reassessment Proceedings:For the years 1985-86 and 1986-87, reassessment proceedings were initiated based on the inspection by the Enforcement Wing. The judgment emphasized that reassessment could only be justified on grounds such as jurisdictional error, fraud, or misrepresentation. In the absence of such findings, mere change of opinion does not justify reopening assessments. The Supreme Court's decision in Ashok Leyland Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu was cited, which held that once F forms are accepted after due inquiry, the transactions are conclusively presumed to be stock transfers.3. Applicability of Section 6A of the Central Sales Tax Act:Section 6A(1) allows dealers to claim that the movement of goods was not due to a sale but a stock transfer, by furnishing F forms. Section 6A(2) provides that if the assessing authority is satisfied with the F forms, the movement of goods is conclusively deemed to be otherwise than by sale. The judgment noted that for the relevant assessment years, the filing of F forms was not mandatory but could be used to discharge the burden of proof.4. Acceptance and Verification of F Forms:For the year 1985-86, the original assessment excluded the value of stock transfers covered by F forms. However, the reassessment did not accept these forms, treating the transactions as inter-State sales. The judgment found that the assessing authority's rejection of F forms was based on incorrect premises, such as the assumption that full payment was received before dispatch and that the goods were sent based on prior orders. The judgment allowed the appeal for the year 1985-86, setting aside the reassessment.For 1986-87, the original assessment accepted the F forms, but the reassessment treated the transactions as inter-State sales. The judgment held that the reassessment was not justified as there was no finding of fraud or misrepresentation. The appeal was allowed for the consignment transactions but dismissed for the branch transfers.5. Jurisdiction and Procedural Correctness of the Assessing Authority:The judgment critically examined the procedural correctness and jurisdiction of the assessing authority in reopening assessments and rejecting F forms. It emphasized that the assessing authority must provide specific findings and cannot reopen assessments based on mere change of opinion. The judgment also highlighted the need for the assessing authority to verify and accept F forms properly before applying the deeming provision under Section 6A(2).Separate Judgments Delivered:The judgment was delivered by a single bench, and no separate judgments were mentioned. The analysis and conclusions were collectively provided for all the appeals.Conclusion:The appeals were allowed or dismissed based on the detailed examination of each assessment year. The judgment underscored the importance of proper verification of F forms and adherence to procedural requirements in reassessment proceedings. The reassessment for the years 1985-86 and 1986-87 was set aside for consignment transactions but upheld for branch transfers. The appeals for the years 1987-88 and 1988-89 were dismissed, affirming the assessment as inter-State sales.