1991 (2) TMI 365

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....isions of that Act, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the State of Gujarat had no jurisdiction to levy Central sales tax on the opponent's impugned subsequent sales of Rs. 2,92,398.84 and in accordingly setting aside the levy of Central sales tax thereon and in also removing the penalty of Rs. 8,127.61 imposed under section 36(3) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 read with section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956?" The opponent is a dealer in petroleum products. It has its head office in Bombay and branch office in Gujarat. It is registered as a dealer at both the places under the Central Sales Tax Act. Between August 23, 1969 and October 12, 1969, the opponent through its local office in Gujarat purchased certain petr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....subsequent sales. 2.. Before the Sales Tax Officer it was contended on behalf of the opponent that the subsequent sales did not fall under section 6(2) of the Central Act, but the appropriate State which could levy and collect the tax under the Central Act would be the State of Maharashtra and not the State of Gujarat. The Sales Tax Officer did not accept this contention and subjected the opponent's turnover of disputed sales to levy and collection of sales tax at the full rate of 10 per cent. He also imposed penalty upon the opponent in terms of section 36(3) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, read with section 9(2) of the Central Act read with section 88 of the Gujarat Act of 1969. Against that order of the assessment and penalty the o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....was that the proviso to section 9(1) was not attracted in this case as the opponent was admittedly registered in Gujarat State as a dealer under the Central Act, and therefore, it was incumbent upon the opponent to have obtained the "C" forms in Gujarat State, in order to qualify its inter-State purchases from Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. for concessional rate of tax and in order to exclude or deprive the jurisdiction or authority of the Gujarat State under the proviso to section 9(1) of the Central Act. The Tribunal held that the present case was covered by section 9(1) of the Central Act, and therefore, the Gujarat State had no jurisdiction to levy and collect the tax on the said subsequent sales. It, therefore, allowed the appeal and set ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....urt that the learned counsel for the applicant has tried to raise that point, and that too, indirectly by submitting that the opponent ought to have procured such declarations only from the authorities in Gujarat State as the goods were purchased in Gujarat. 6.. As stated earlier, the opponent is a dealer registered both in State of Maharashtra and State of Gujarat under the Central Sales Tax Act. It had obtained "C" forms for the purpose of clause (a) of section 8(4) in connection with the purchase of the goods from the authorities in the State of Maharashtra. The goods purchased by the opponent were to be delivered at Bombay pursuant to the first inter-State sale. Therefore, necessary "C" forms could have been obtained by the appellant....