TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1981 (10) TMI 152
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r movement from one State to another...................." M/s. Pandit Brothers, the sole proprietorship concern of the petitioner, is carrying on business of manufacture and sale of motor spring leaves within the Union Territory of Delhi in this way. The general administration of the business is carried on from the head office at Delhi but the actual manufacture is entirely done at its factory at Bahadurgarh in the State of Haryana. The petitioner is a registered dealer having registration certificate No. 21390 in the Union Territory of Delhi under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, as extended to the Union Territory of Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the local Act), with effect from 24th May, 1958. The registration originally was for the resale of motor parts. The petitioner is also a registered dealer under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter called the Central Act), vide registration No. 9610 since 24th May, 1958, with the sales tax authorities at Delhi. The petitioner started its own manufacturing at Bahadurgarh in the State of Haryana in the year 1966, when the registration certificate was accordingly amended as manufacture of motor spare parts, namely, spri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l Act with effect from 29th September, 1966. Having fixed the liability of the petitioner to pay tax within the State of Haryana both under the Haryana Act and the Central Act, the Assessing Authority under the Haryana Act then proceeded to assess the petitioner for the year 1966-67. It was found that during the year 1966-67 no local sales were made and, therefore, the case was filed with no demand. For the assessment year 1967-68, the Assessing Authority under the Haryana Act by its order dated 1st September, 1972, held that no local sales were made and filed the case with no demand. But the Assessing Authority at Haryana made an assessment under the Central Act by its order dated 1st September, 1972, wherein it treated all the transfers to Delhi as inter-State sales from Bahadurgarh at Haryana and raised against the petitioner a demand of tax of Rs. 24,708.41 under the Central Act for the financial year 1967-68. In the same manner, the Assessing Authority at Haryana assessed for the assessment year 1968-69 similar transactions to tax under the Central Act vide its order dated 1st September, 1972, and raised a demand against the petitioner of Rs. 32,484.77. Similarly, for the asse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is petition thus raises a controversy at the instance of the petitioner between the sales tax authorities in the Union Territory of Delhi and those in Haryana as to which of the two authorities are competent to assess the petitioner in respect of the sale transactions. The Union of India on whose behalf the collection of the tax was made by the two authorities has not chosen to appear before us. The petitioner's stand on the jurisdictional facts now is that the authorities in the Union Territory of Delhi have no jurisdiction and therefore, a writ of certiorari is claimed for quashing the assessment orders passed by the assessing authority in the Union Territory of Delhi for the assessment years 1966-67 to 1969-70 under the Central Act and for a mandamus directing respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to refund the amount of Rs. 46,582.91 paid as tax. The modus operandi of the business of the petitioner as disclosed in the petition is like this. The manufacturing is entirely done at the factory at Bahadurgarh in the State of Haryana. The general administration of the business of the petitioner is carried on from the head office at Delhi situated at Chabi Gani, Kashmere Gate, Delhi. The orders f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....red by the petitioner in its factory at Bahadurgarh (Haryana) in pursuance of specific orders received by its head office at Delhi. The contracts of sale were made in Delhi and in pursuance of those contracts, the goods were manufactured at Bahadurgarh (Haryana) according to the specifications mentioned in the contract. After the goods were manufactured according to specifications, they were despatched to the head office at Delhi/Delhi Border for being forwarded to the respective customers at whose instance and pursuant to the contracts with whom the goods were manufactured. The goods conforming to agreed specifications having been manufactured at Bahadurgarh (Haryana), the contracts of sale could be performed by the petitioner only by the movement of the goods from Bahadurgarh (Haryana) with the intention of delivering them to the purchasers. The movement of the goods was occasioned from Bahadurgarh to Delhi as a result of or incidental to the contracts of sale made in Delhi. In our view, the sales effected by the petitioner occasioned the movement of the goods from Haryana to Delhi and, therefore, are deemed to have taken place in the course of inter-State trade and commerce with....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....her the sales made were made at Faridabad in the course of inter-State trade or whether they were intra-State sales effected within the Union Territory of Delhi. This Court held that the sales were inter-State sales assessable to sales tax under the Central Act by the sales tax authorities at Faridabad. On appeal to the Supreme Court, it was affirmed. It was held that if a contract of a sale contains a stipulation for the movement of the goods from one State to another, the sale would certainly be an inter-State sale. But for the purposes of section 3(a) of the Central Act it is not necessary that the contract of sale must itself provide for and cause the movement of goods or that the movement of goods must be occasioned specifically in accordance with the terms of the contract of sale. A sale can be an interState sale, even if the contract of sale does not itself provide for the movement of goods from one State to another but such movement is the result of a covenant in the contract of sale or is an incident of that contract and that goods conforming to agreed specifications having been manufactured at Faridabad, the contracts of sale could, be performed by K.G. Khosla & Co. Ltd. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ctober, 1975, for quashing the orders of respondent No. 2 for four financial years from 1966-67 to 1969-70 dated 15th March, 1971, 3rd January, 1972, 31st May, 1972, and 15th March, 1974, respectively. The assessments were framed by the Assessing Authorities under the Haryana Act for the financial years 1967-68 to 1968-69 on 1st September, 1972, and for the financial year 1969-70 on 9th January, 1973. Thereafter the petitioner had filed the appeals, which were allowed by the Haryana authorities on 9th April, 1973, and the cases remanded with certain directions. The assessments were finally completed pertaining to these years on 4th August, 1975, in which the Assessing Authority under the Haryana Act allowed the concessional rate of tax on the basis of C form filed but the Central sales tax paid for the same transaction at Delhi was not appropriated. Section 9 of the Central Act attracts the machinery provisions of the local sales tax law. Section 9(2) creates the authorities in the States or Union Territory of Delhi as agencies to carry out the assessment, etc., of a dealer under the Central Act. But the incidence of tax arising out of the same transaction could not accrue in the t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ct of their transactions are expressly left to be decided by the appropriate authorities under the Acts as matters falling within their jurisdiction. It is further urged that if the petitioner had later realised that for the same transaction it had to pay the tax both to the authorities at Haryana and Delhi, the proper course should have been to have either appealed or applied for revision against the impugned orders accompanied by an application for condonation of delay and not filed the petition in this Court. A sale becomes taxable under section 3(a) of the Central Act if the movement of goods from one State to another is under a covenant or incident of the contract of sale. In respect of an inter-State sale, the tax is leviable only once. As already pointed out, section 9 of the Central Act creates the State authorities as agencies to carry out the assessment. It involves the initiation of proceedings by issuing notice for production of books, examination of books, quantifications of the tax due and lastly intimating to the dealer the amount of the tax payable. The books of account, i.e., cash book, ledger, sale and purchase vouchers were seen by the assessing authorities at....