Sales Tax Tribunal orders upheld on inter-state sale and Form F issuance for stock transfer

The HC dismissed a petition challenging Sales Tax Tribunal orders regarding inter-state sale and Form F issuance for stock transfer from Faridabad. The petitioner had contracted with Bihar Government to supply energy food and transferred goods to branches in Patna, Madras and Kanpur pursuant to prior contracts. The court relied on SC precedent establishing that inter-state sales tax is leviable in the manufacturing state from where goods movement occurs. Despite the case ordinarily requiring transfer to Central Sales Tax Appellate Authority, the court noted a corporate guarantee was furnished by the guarantor company as per previous court directions.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Challenge to the orders passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal, Haryana.
2. Formation of Central Sales Tax Appellate Authority.
3. Assessment of inter-State sales and imposition of tax.
4. Refund of the amount deposited as per assessment order.
5. Double taxation and applicability of sales tax laws.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Challenge to the Orders Passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal, Haryana:
The petitioners in CWP Nos. 11972, 11988, and 12048 of 2000 challenged the orders of the Sales Tax Tribunal, Haryana, which upheld the orders passed by the Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner. The Tribunal had dismissed the appeals (STAs No. 13 and 594 of 1998-99 and STA No. 370 of 1999-2000) by a short order dated 12.05.2000. The Tribunal's decision was based on the assessment of sales tax on inter-State sales originating from Haryana.

2. Formation of Central Sales Tax Appellate Authority:
In CWP No. 16829 of 2004, the petitioner prayed for the formation of the Central Sales Tax Appellate Authority and challenged the assessment order dated 29.09.2004, requesting a refund of the amount deposited as per the assessment order dated 20.02.2004. The Court noted that the Central Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal had already been formed.

3. Assessment of Inter-State Sales and Imposition of Tax:
The core issue was whether the supply of Poshahar by MFIL from its Faridabad plant to the Government of Bihar constituted inter-State sales. The Excise & Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority, Faridabad, treated these supplies as inter-State sales, levied tax, and imposed penalties. The Joint Commissioner & Taxation Commissioner (Appeal), Faridabad, upheld this view, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Sahney Steel and Press Works Limited vs Commercial Tax Officer, which held that goods moving from one State to another due to a contract of sale are inter-State sales. The Sales Tax Tribunal also upheld this order.

4. Refund of the Amount Deposited as per Assessment Order:
The petitioners argued that they had already paid sales tax to the Bihar Government and that treating the transactions as inter-State sales by Haryana would result in double taxation. They contended that the sales tax paid in Bihar should preclude additional tax in Haryana. The Court referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in Tata Motors Limited vs Central Sales Tax Appellate Authority, which discussed the refund of tax collected by a State if it was not due to that State.

5. Double Taxation and Applicability of Sales Tax Laws:
The petitioners argued that the transactions were stock transfers and intra-State sales, supported by Form 'F', which should exempt them from being taxed as inter-State sales. They relied on Section 6A of the CST Act, 1956, and Section 3(a) of the Act, which define the principles for determining inter-State sales. The Court, however, found that the goods moved from Faridabad to Patna, Madras, and Kanpur in pursuance of a prior contract, making it an inter-State sale. The Sales Tax Tribunal's order dated 12.05.2000 confirmed that the supply was in pursuance of an existing contract, and the sales tax was appropriately imposed.

Conclusion:
The Court dismissed the writ petitions, stating that the petitioner must pay the arrears of tax with interest as per the interim order dated 20.11.2000. The petitioner was allowed to claim a refund of the amount already paid to the concerned States in line with the observations in Tata Motors Limited. All pending applications were disposed of with no costs awarded.

---