Course of import analysis defeats local sales tax treatment of imported goods moved from Chennai to Andhra Pradesh.

Tax authorities could not treat the import transaction as a local sale in Tamil Nadu where the records showed the goods were imported for execution of the Polavaram project in Andhra Pradesh, the customs documents and bill of entry identified the buyer, and the e-way bill supported continuous movement from Chennai to Andhra Pradesh. A Chennai address, a Chennai office, or an Import Export Code obtained in Chennai did not by themselves establish a taxable sale within Tamil Nadu. On these facts, the transaction was one occasioning import and fell within the course of import under Section 5(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, so levy of tax and penalty as a Tamil Nadu sale was unsustainable and registration under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 could not be compelled on that basis.

---

---

Issues: Whether the impugned levy of tax and penalty on the imported goods, on the footing that the transaction was a sale within Tamil Nadu, was sustainable and whether the petitioner could be required to register under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006.

Analysis: The transaction records showed that the joint venture had imported the goods for execution of the Polavaram project in Andhra Pradesh, that the bill of entry and customs documents identified the petitioner as buyer, and that the goods were intended for delivery at the project site in Andhra Pradesh. The generation of the e-way bill from the Andhra Pradesh tax portal before detention also supported continuous movement from Chennai to Andhra Pradesh. Mere use of a Chennai address, the existence of an office in Chennai, or the obtaining of an Import Export Code at Chennai did not by themselves establish a sale within Tamil Nadu. On the facts, there was no material to show a sale between two establishments so as to attract local tax; the transaction was one occasioning import and falling within the course of import under Section 5(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act.

Conclusion: The levy of tax and penalty treating the transaction as a sale within Tamil Nadu was unsustainable, and the petitioner could not be compelled to register under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 on that basis.

---