2025 (9) TMI 1152 - AT - VAT / Sales Tax

Appeal dismissed; sales treated as inter-state sales not stock transfers; assessee bears burden to prove branch transfers

M/s. Eternit Everest Ltd. Versus The Assistant Commissioner (CT) (FAC), The State of Tamil Nadu, The Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, The State of Karnataka, The State of Andhra Pradesh, The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Kerala, The Union Territory of Puducherry, The State of Maharashtra, The State of West Bengal, The State of Madhya Pradesh, The State of Punjab, The Commissioner of Sales Tax, Gujarat, The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, The Commissioner of Sales Tax, Delhi AND 13 Others.

CESTAT New Delhi - AT dismissed the appeal and upheld the tribunal order denying the appellant's stock-transfer claim for AYs 1994-95 and 1995-96. ... Disallowance of claim of stock transfer made by the appellant - transfers of goods from the manufacturing unit in one State to depots in other States - levy of penalty - Scope of inquiry under section 6A(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act - HELD THAT:- The Karnataka High Court in Harison & Co. [2004 (12) TMI 654 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] observed that the Assessing Authority has to make an enquiry to find out whether the particulars contained in the declaration furnished by the dealer in Form F are true and for this purpose the Assessing Authority is also authorized to call for other information to verify the correctness of the particulars contained in Form-F declaration. In fact, the Assessing Authority had directed the assessee to produce the books of accounts and other records, if any, to support its claim of branch transfers and to ascertain the genuineness of such ‘stock transfers’. The Karnataka High Court also observed that the burden is on the assessee to prove that the transaction is not a sale but a branch transfer and for this purpose though several opportunities were provided to the assessee to discharge this burden, it failed to do so. The Allahabad High Court in Glaxo Smith Kline Pharmaceuticals [2018 (8) TMI 350 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] also held that the submission of Form F by itself does not raise any unrebutable or conclusive presumption regarding the transaction being a ‘stock transfer’. Thus, mere furnishing of a declaration in Form F is not sufficient to arrive at a conclusion that the transfer of goods from one State to another is a ‘stock transfer’ or the movement of goods from one State to another has been occasioned by a prior sale. The branch offices of the company located in other States, after procuring orders for the supply of goods with definite specifications and drawings advised the registered office at Hyderabad to manufacture and supply the goods in accordance therewith. Upon receipt, the goods were collected by the branch offices and despatched to various customers according to the orders received earlier. The sales involved were, therefore, held to be inter-State sales. There is no infirmity in the order dated 28.02.2014 passed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal relating to the assessment years 1994-1995 and 1995-1996 denying the claim of stock transfer made by the appellant - Appeal dismissed. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether transfers of goods from the manufacturing unit in one State to depots in other States constituted branch/stock transfers (exempt from Central Sales Tax) or inter-State sales liable to tax under the Central Sales Tax Act. 2. Scope of inquiry under section 6A(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act (as applicable to assessment years 1994-95 and 1995-96): whether the assessing authority's inquiry, after production of Form F, is confined solely to the truth of particulars in Form F or may extend to examine whether movements were in reality to effect prior contracts of sale (i.e., whether the transfers were camouflaged inter-State sales). 3. Whether reliance by the assessing authority on documents recovered during a search/inspection (including slips evidencing orders, demand drafts and correspondence) was permissible to displace a claim of stock transfer when the assessee failed to produce ancillary records (ledgers, proof of depots, proof of dispatch, bank accounts of depots). 4. Whether levy of penalty was warranted where disputed turnover was reported but exemption was claimed (interaction of reporting and penalty principles). ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1 - Characterisation: Branch/stock transfer v. inter-State sale Legal framework: Section 3(a) deems a sale to take place in the course of inter-State trade if it occasions movement of goods from one State to another; section 6 imposes liability on dealers for inter-State sales; section 6A places initial burden on dealer to prove movement was by transfer to another place of business (stock/branch transfer) and contemplates filing of Form F and evidence of dispatch. Precedent treatment: The Court considered Supreme Court authority which (i) places the initial burden on dealer to prove non-sale character of movement and (ii) recognises that verification of Form F aims to determine whether branch acted merely as conduit or whether movement was pursuant to independent agreement to sell. The Court also reviewed High Court and Appellate Tribunal decisions holding that assessing authorities may inquire beyond Form F to ascertain whether prior contracts of sale existed that occasioned movement. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court analysed the primary materials recovered on inspection - files with numerous slips showing direct correspondence/orders, demand drafts addressed to and received by the central office, examples of advance payments and specification-based orders sent to the central office, invoices raised at central office showing movement from depots, absence of depot bank accounts and non-production of stock ledgers and proof of depots. The Court concluded that these materials established a nexus between pre-existing contracts (orders with payment/specifications) and movement from the manufacturing unit, making the depots mere conduits and the transactions inter-State sales under section 3(a). The Court emphasised that the presence of an intermediary or depot is irrelevant when the movement is occasioned by a contract to sell located in the dispatching State; what matters is the conceivable link between the contract and movement. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - where objective documentary evidence (orders, payment remittances, invoices) demonstrates that movement was in fulfilment of prior contracts with buyers in other States, such movement is occasioned by sale and not stock transfer for purposes of section 3(a) and section 6A. Obiter - observations on intermediary irrelevance and illustrations of case law supporting nexus principle reinforce the ratio. Conclusions: The Court upheld the finding that transfers to depots constituted inter-State sales and rejected the stock/branch transfer claim in the circumstances where documentary evidence showed orders and payments directed to central office and the assessee failed to produce depot records proving independent appropriation at depots. Issue 2 - Scope of inquiry under section 6A(2) (pre-2010 text applicable) Legal framework: Section 6A(1) (pre-11.05.2002 wording) placed burden on dealer and allowed filing of Form F with evidence of dispatch; section 6A(2) permitted assessing authority to make 'such inquiry as he may deem necessary' to satisfy truth of particulars and, if satisfied, to make an order deeming movement otherwise than as a result of sale. Precedent treatment: The Court analysed divergent authorities: (a) Supreme Court holdings stressing the initial burden on dealer and that verification of Form F aims at ascertaining whether branch acted as conduit; (b) decisions holding that inquiry may extend beyond the strict four corners of Form F to determine whether movements were in reality to effect prior contracts of sale; (c) some High Court decisions suggesting inquiry confined to truth of particulars in Form F. The Court gave weight to the Supreme Court's pronouncements and to the Central Sales Tax Appellate Authority and High Court decisions endorsing broader inquiry as necessary to make charging provision workable. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court reasoned that section 6A(2)'s language ('such inquiry as he may deem necessary') authorises the assessing authority to call for and examine additional relevant records beyond Form F to test the veracity of declared particulars, including whether transfers were sham stock transfers to evade CST. The Court held that the 2010 amendment (explicitly adding 'and that no inter-State sale has been effected') only clarified what was already implicit: that inquiry could probe whether an inter-State sale had in fact occurred. Reliance on authorities restricting inquiry to Form F was rejected where they fail to reconcile with higher court decisions permitting broader inquiry; the Court found the assessing authority's wider inquiry permissible in first instance assessments and necessary where the dealer failed to produce corroborative depot records. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - section 6A(2) empowered assessing authority to make inquiry beyond strict contents of Form F to determine whether movement was occasioned by sale; the 2010 amendment is declaratory of that interpretative position. Obiter - commentary on retrospective effect of amendment and critiques of conflicting High Court decisions. Conclusions: The Assessing Authority was entitled to investigate beyond Form F particulars and to rely on documents recovered on inspection to determine whether transfers were inter-State sales. The Court rejected the contention that Form F, once tendered, confined inquiry solely to the particulars stated therein. Issue 3 - Permissibility of reliance on documents recovered in inspection when assessee failed to produce corroborative records Legal framework: Under section 6A(2) the assessing authority may make inquiries and call for information relevant to test the truth of declared particulars; failure by dealer to produce requested books and depot records affects ability to discharge burden. Precedent treatment: High Court and Tribunal decisions cited support assessing authorities' power to requisition and act upon books, correspondence, dispatch documents, and other materials; failure or refusal to produce such records justifies drawing adverse conclusions and reliance on recovered documents. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court accepted the Assessing Authority's factual findings that the assessee failed to produce ledgers, proof of depots, proof of dispatch, monthly depot accounts and bank records despite requisitions and opportunities. In that factual matrix, reliance on inspection-recovered files (slips A & B) showing orders, demand drafts and correspondence was reasonable and permissible. The Court emphasised that in absence of depot records showing appropriation at depots, the documentary evidence indicated movement pursuant to pre-existing contracts and justified assessment as inter-State sales. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - where the dealer fails to produce records necessary to verify Form F particulars, the assessing authority may rely on inspection-recovered material and infer that movements were pursuant to inter-State sales. Obiter - evidentiary guidance on types of documents that are probative. Conclusions: Reliance on documents recovered during inspection was permissible and justified given non-production of corroborative records by the dealer; such reliance supported treating the transfers as inter-State sales. Issue 4 - Levy of penalty when disputed turnover is reported and exemption claimed Legal framework: Principles concerning levy of penalty where turnover is reported but exemption claimed; relevant precedent distinguishes cases where disputed turnover is reported (attenuating penalty) from concealment cases. Precedent treatment: The Tribunal applied precedent applicable where disputed turnover was disclosed and assessed on book turnover, making penalty inappropriate. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court noted that the assessment was made on book turnover and that the disputed turnover had been reported though exemption claimed; reliance on authority holding that where disputed turnover is reported and accounted for, penalty is not warranted prevailed over revenue's reliance on decisions applying penalty for suppression. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - levy of penalty was deleted because contested turnover was reported and assessed on book turnover; imposition of penalty was not warranted in those circumstances. Obiter - comparative remark distinguishing different penalty authorities. Conclusions: The Court affirmed deletion of penalty as ordered by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. Cross-references - Issue 2 is closely linked to Issue 3: the permissible breadth of inquiry under section 6A(2) determines whether inspection-recovered documents may be considered (see paras analysing scope and factual reliance). - Issue 1 depends on conclusions under Issue 2 and Issue 3 regarding admissibility and weight of documentary evidence demonstrating nexus between contracts and movement.