TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court rules goods supplied in the name of the President as sold to the Government under CST Act</h1> The Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, stating that goods supplied or procured in the name of the President of India should be treated as sold to the ... Eligibility of exemption from tax - central sale - the claim made in Form-D declaration was unavailable - If the material is supplied in response to the tender invited in the name of President of India, whether it has to be considered under the Central Government or not? - Held that: - if the goods are supplied or procured in the name of the President of India or supplied in response to the tender published in the name of the President of India, it has to be treated as goods sold to the Government (Union Government) and the benefit of Section 8(4) of the CST Act would be available to the petitioner. The point of law is decided accordingly. Verification of facts - Held that:- If the Tribunal finds as prima facie observed by us earlier that it was a case of goods sold to the President of India, then also, the matter will have to be remanded by the Tribunal to the Assessing Authority instead that if the matter is remanded by us to the Assessing Authority, that could be a better course since the Assessing Authority would be in a position to examine and may also call for other documents, if required for verification or otherwise. Hence, we find that the matter should be relegated to the first Assessing Authority - the impugned orders passed by the Assessing Authority and confirmed thereof by the first appellate authority as well as by the Tribunal are quashed and set aside - matter remanded back with directions. Issues:Interpretation of Section 8(4) of the CST Act regarding sales in the course of inter-State trade or commerce to the Government.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Interpretation of Section 8(4) of the CST ActThe main issue in this case was the interpretation of Section 8(4) of the CST Act, which deals with sales in the course of inter-State trade or commerce to the Government. The petitioner had supplied material in response to a tender published by Prasara Bharathi in the name of the President of India. The dispute arose when exemption from tax was denied based on the claim made in Form-D declaration. The lower authorities held that Prasara Bharathi is not a Central Government Department, leading to the denial of the benefit under Section 8(4) of the CST Act.Analysis:The Court referred to Section 8(4) of the CST Act, emphasizing that if a declaration is filed for goods sold to the Government, the benefit under this section should be available. The petitioner argued that since the tender was in the name of the President of India, the goods were effectively sold to the Central Government. On the other hand, the respondent contended that the word 'Government' in Section 8(4) refers specifically to the Government and not to any other statutory body. The Court analyzed the definition of 'Central Government' under the General Clauses Act and Article 299 of the Constitution to determine the scope of the term 'Government' in this context.Issue 2: Verification of Procurement DetailsAnother aspect of the case involved the verification of procurement details. The respondent argued that the tender documents were not produced before any authority previously, and their authenticity was questioned. The Court acknowledged the need for verification and suggested that the matter be referred back to the Assessing Authority for a thorough examination of whether the procurement was indeed in the name of the President of India and if the goods were sold to the Government.Analysis:The Court highlighted the importance of verifying the procurement details to establish whether the goods were indeed sold to the Government. It was suggested that the Assessing Authority should re-examine the case, considering the tender documents and any additional evidence provided by the petitioner. The Court emphasized the need for a proper verification process before making a final determination on the applicability of Section 8(4) of the CST Act.In conclusion, the Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, stating that if goods are supplied or procured in the name of the President of India, they should be treated as goods sold to the Government, making the petitioner eligible for the benefit under Section 8(4) of the CST Act. The impugned orders were quashed, and the matter was remanded to the Assessing Authority for further examination and a decision based on the observations made by the Court.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
