Inter-State sale test: movement of goods, not local TIN or delivery form, governs VAT liability in online transactions.

Inter-State sale liability turns on whether the sale or contract of sale occasions movement of goods from one State to another, not on where title ultimately passes or where delivery is completed. A local TIN entry in Form VAT-36 filed for clearance is not conclusive of intra-State turnover, and cannot by itself fasten Punjab VAT liability where the transaction is otherwise claimed as inter-State. The seller's role must also be examined transaction-wise, because where it acts only as a logistics provider without proprietary interest in the goods, tax liability cannot be imposed merely for delivery support. The impugned assessment and demand were set aside and the matter remanded for fresh assessment.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessment treating the petitioner's online transactions as intra-State sales in Punjab and fastening liability under the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 was sustainable, including whether mention of the Punjab TIN in the declaration form was conclusive and whether the petitioner acted only as a logistics provider in some transactions.

Analysis: Liability under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 depends on whether the sale or agreement for sale occasions the movement of goods from one State to another, and not on the State in which property in the goods passes or where the sale is finally completed. The mention of a Punjab TIN in Form VAT-36 filed at the Information Collection Centre was not conclusive of a local sale, because the form was required for clearance and its filing could not prejudice an assessee claiming inter-State sale. The assessment order had proceeded on an erroneous premise that mere import into Punjab and use of the TIN established a local taxable sale, without applying the governing principles on inter-State trade. The separate position of the petitioner as a logistics provider for other sellers was also material, because in such transactions it had no proprietary interest in the goods and could not be taxed merely for providing delivery support.

Conclusion: The assessment order and consequential demand notices could not be sustained as they stood and required fresh consideration in accordance with the correct legal principles.

Final Conclusion: The impugned assessment and demand were set aside, and the matter was remanded for a fresh assessment on the basis of the legal position governing inter-State sales and the petitioner's role in each transaction.

Ratio Decidendi: For determining whether an online transaction is an inter-State sale, the decisive test is whether the sale or contract of sale occasions the movement of goods from one State to another, and mandatory transport declarations or mention of a local TIN are not conclusive of intra-State liability.

---