Inter-State sale of natural gas determined by contractual delivery point; Uttar Pradesh could not levy local VAT.
A sale of natural gas was treated as an inter-State sale where the contract fixed the delivery point in Andhra Pradesh and title and risk passed there, even though the gas was later transported to Gujarat and Uttar Pradesh. Movement through a pipeline, commingling in transit, and later processing did not create a fresh taxable event in Uttar Pradesh. The transaction fell within Section 3 of the Central Sales Tax Act, and the later explanation was treated as clarificatory. Because the sale was inter-State, Uttar Pradesh could not levy VAT under its sales tax law, and Articles 269 and 286, together with the State VAT exclusion, barred local taxation.
Issues: (i) Whether the sale of natural gas under the contractual and transportation arrangements was an inter-State sale or an intra-State sale. (ii) Whether the State of Uttar Pradesh had jurisdiction to levy VAT on the transaction.
Issue (i): Whether the sale of natural gas under the contractual and transportation arrangements was an inter-State sale or an intra-State sale.
Analysis: The sale was effected under a gas sale agreement that fixed the delivery point at Gadimoga in Andhra Pradesh, where measurement, delivery, and transfer of title and risk took place. The subsequent movement of gas to Gujarat and then Uttar Pradesh occurred pursuant to the contractual transportation arrangements and did not create a fresh taxable event in Uttar Pradesh. Section 3 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 governs sales that occasion the movement of goods from one State to another, and the later addition of Explanation 3 was treated as clarificatory of the existing legal position regarding gas moved through a common carrier pipeline. The co-mingling of gas in transit and any later processing did not alter the inter-State character of the original sale.
Conclusion: The transaction was an inter-State sale and not an intra-State sale.
Issue (ii): Whether the State of Uttar Pradesh had jurisdiction to levy VAT on the transaction.
Analysis: Once the transaction fell within the inter-State field, the constitutional scheme and the Central Sales Tax Act excluded State VAT. The State's power under its sales tax law could not override the limits imposed by Articles 269 and 286 of the Constitution of India, and Section 7 of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008 itself excluded such transactions from State levy. The existence of Form-C and the contractual stipulation of delivery at Gadimoga reinforced the conclusion that Uttar Pradesh could not treat the sale as a local one. The argument based on unascertained goods, commingling, or public trust doctrine did not justify State taxation.
Conclusion: The State of Uttar Pradesh had no jurisdiction or statutory authority to levy VAT on the transaction.
Final Conclusion: The High Court's decision to quash the assessment and consequential demands was sustained, and the State's challenge failed.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the contract fixes delivery and transfer of title at one State and the movement of goods to another State is occasioned by that contract, the sale is inter-State under Section 3 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, and a State cannot levy local VAT on that transaction merely because the goods are transported, commingled, or processed further in the destination State.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
