Interstate movement of goods from factory to depot constitutes inter-state sales, not branch transfers under CST Act

CESTAT New Delhi upheld the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal's finding that interstate movement of goods from appellant's Coimbatore factory to Palakkad depot constituted inter-state sales rather than branch transfers for the period 01.04.1996 to 28.08.1996. Central sales tax of Rs. 1,44,069/- was held payable to Tamil Nadu. The appellant's alternative prayer for transfer of refundable amount under section 22(1B) of CST Act was rejected due to unavailability of Kerala sales tax payment details. Appeal dismissed.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Nature of Goods Transfer: Inter-state Sales vs. Branch Transfers.
2. Validity of D-7 Records and Correspondence.
3. Central Sales Tax (CST) Liability and Exemption Claims.
4. Alternative Relief under Section 22(1B) of the CST Act.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Nature of Goods Transfer: Inter-state Sales vs. Branch Transfers

The primary issue was whether the transfer of goods by the appellant from its factory in Coimbatore to its depot in Palakkad during 01.04.1996 to 28.08.1996 constituted inter-state sales or branch transfers. The appellant claimed these were branch transfers, thus exempt from Central Sales Tax (CST), as the goods were moved to their own depot in Kerala. However, the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal concluded that the movement of goods was occasioned by sales, making them inter-state sales. This conclusion was based on the D-7 records and correspondence, which indicated pre-arranged sales orders from Argus Cosmetics, occasioning the movement of goods from Tamil Nadu to Kerala.

2. Validity of D-7 Records and Correspondence

The D-7 records, recovered during an inspection, played a crucial role in determining the nature of the transactions. These records included slips and correspondence between the appellant and Argus Cosmetics, indicating dispatch instructions and payments made directly to the appellant's head office in Coimbatore. The Tribunal found that these documents clearly showed that the goods were dispatched based on pre-arranged orders, which were indicative of inter-state sales. The Tribunal rejected the appellant's argument that these were mere dispatch instructions not amounting to purchase orders.

3. Central Sales Tax (CST) Liability and Exemption Claims

The Tribunal upheld the CST liability for the period 01.04.1996 to 28.08.1996, amounting to Rs. 1,44,069/-, while setting aside the demand for the period after the inspection (29.08.1996 to 31.03.1997). The appellant's claim for CST exemption based on 'F Forms' was not accepted for the disputed period, as the Tribunal found that the transactions were inter-state sales. The Tribunal noted that the appellant had the burden of proof to demonstrate that the transfers were not sales, which they failed to do.

4. Alternative Relief under Section 22(1B) of the CST Act

The appellant sought an alternative relief under section 22(1B) of the CST Act, requesting the transfer of refundable sales tax paid in Kerala to Tamil Nadu. However, the Tribunal could not grant this relief due to the lack of detailed information on the sales tax paid in Kerala. The Tribunal highlighted that for such an order to be passed, the amount of tax paid and the CST payable must be known, which was not the case here.

Conclusion

The Tribunal upheld the impugned order, affirming the CST liability for the disputed period and dismissing the appeal. The Tribunal found that the appellant failed to substantiate their claim of branch transfers and that the D-7 records clearly indicated inter-state sales. The alternative relief sought under section 22(1B) was also denied due to insufficient information regarding the tax paid in Kerala.

---