Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        Note

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Inter-State Sale: CST Liability for Movement of Capital Goods from SEZ</h1> <h3>STATE OF KERALA, THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER SALES TAX, THE SALES TAX INSPECTOR SALES TAX Versus M/s. COVEMA WOOD PLAST, UNION OF INDIA, THE DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER, MS. KUMAR ARCH TECH (P) LTD.</h3> STATE OF KERALA, THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER SALES TAX, THE SALES TAX INSPECTOR SALES TAX Versus M/s. COVEMA WOOD PLAST, UNION OF INDIA, THE ... Issues Involved:1. Tax liability on the movement of capital goods from a unit in the Cochin Special Economic Zone (CSEZ) to a unit in Udaipur, Rajasthan.2. Applicability of exemption from Central Sales Tax (CST) for inter-unit transfer under the EXIM Policy.3. Interpretation of the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 regarding the movement of goods.4. Determination of whether the movement of goods constitutes an inter-State sale or a sale in the course of import.Detailed Analysis:1. Tax Liability on Movement of Capital Goods:The petitioner, a company registered under the Companies Act 1956, engaged in the manufacture and export of PVC Free Foam Sheets, imported capital goods duty-free under a Bond agreement and kept them in a bonded warehouse within the CSEZ. The petitioner transferred these goods to the 6th respondent's unit in Udaipur, Rajasthan, under a lease agreement. The goods were detained by Sales Tax authorities, and the petitioner contended that the movement of goods from SEZ to a 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU) should not be treated as an inter-State sale for CST purposes. The court noted that the goods did not cross the customs frontiers of India and therefore, the CST demanded was illegal.2. Applicability of Exemption from CST for Inter-Unit Transfer:The Assistant Commissioner (Law) argued that the petitioner's unit in SEZ is not entitled to exemption in case of inter-State sale, as the capital goods intercepted were sold to the 6th respondent, making it an inter-State sale exigible under the CST Act. The petitioner contended that the inter-unit transfer was permitted under the EXIM Policy, and the goods were moved with the necessary permissions from the Development Commissioner and Customs Authorities. The court examined the EXIM Policy and the Customs Act provisions, concluding that the permissions granted under these laws do not exempt the petitioner from CST if the transaction is otherwise exigible.3. Interpretation of the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005:The court noted that Sections 51 and 53 of the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005, have an overriding effect on other laws and deem SEZs as territories outside the customs territory of India. However, the 6th respondent was not located in an SEZ but was a 100% EOU. The court found that the movement of goods from CSEZ to the 6th respondent did not fall under the provisions of the SEZ Act, 2005, and hence, the findings of the lower court on this issue were unsustainable.4. Determination of Inter-State Sale or Sale in the Course of Import:The petitioner argued that the movement of goods was in the course of import and should be exempt from CST. The court referred to the judgments in Nirmal Kumar Parsan and Ind Rubber Traders cases, which laid down the tests for determining inter-State sales and sales in the course of import. The court found that the movement of goods from Cochin to Udaipur was an inter-State transfer, as evidenced by the invoices and Bills of Entry. The court concluded that the petitioner's claim for exemption from CST on the ground of movement in the course of import was unsustainable.Conclusion:The court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgment under appeal, and held that the movement of capital goods from CSEZ to the 6th respondent in Udaipur was an inter-State sale exigible to CST. The permissions granted under the EXIM Policy and Customs Act did not exempt the petitioner from CST liability. The findings of the lower court regarding the applicability of the SEZ Act, 2005, and the nature of the transaction were found to be incorrect. The appeal was allowed with no order as to costs.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found