TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1990 (8) TMI 366
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....are: (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a true and correct interpretation of sections 2(g), 3 and 6 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, the Board of Revenue was justified in law in holding that the despatches in question made by the assessee to the three oil companies amounted to "sale" within the meaning of section 2(g) of the said Act? (2) Whether the conclusion of the Board of Revenue holding the transactions to be "sale" is vitiated in law -by reason of improper rejection and/or non-consideration of relevant materials and evidence on record and being based on surmises, suspicion and conjectures? (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Board of Revenue was correct in law i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....scheme" introduced by the Government of India and the companies had later returned in kind goods of equivalent value to the agent at different places outside the State. The Superintendent of Taxes held that the aforesaid transaction was movement of goods outside the State as an inter-State sale and as such, sale under the Act and liable for tax and accordingly, assessed the "tax" payable by the assessee. The assessee preferred appeal. The Assistant Commissioner of Taxes (Appeals), Jorhat, by order dated April 11, 1979, dismissed the appeals. On further appeal the Board also by order dated May 29, 1981, dismissed the appeal. The assessee prayed for reference and accordingly the questions noted earlier have been referred. 4.. We have heard M....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e". However, after the evidence had been produced and the basic relevant facts had been ascertained the question of "onus" could only be of academic significance. 8.. Mr. J.P. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the assessee, has submitted that the transaction even though it involved inter-State movement of goods was not "sale" but was "barter" because as consideration for the goods despatched by the assessee at the instance of its agent to the companies, the latter (the companies) had returned goods to the agent and consequently the transaction was not sale. In this connection reference was made to definitions of "sale" in section 54 and of "exchange" in section 118 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and it was submitted that "sale" was....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ning a particular "term" or "expression" should be attributed to understand its meaning and scope, in the instant case "sale" in section 2(g) of the Act. 10.. In the general law of transfer of property obviously "sale" as transaction relating to property was different from exchanges. However, in the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 "sale" in its section 2(xiii) is defined to include "by way of exchange", obviously a much wider definition in an attempt possibly to take care of human ingenuity in such matter to achieve the purpose of the law. The question that whether "transaction" was sale or not has therefore to be determined on consideration of the definition of "sale" in the Act itself. 11.. The transfer of property in goods by....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion being barter, would not be sale. 13.. We have considered the submission and while with respect, we do think that on plain ordinary grammatical construction of expression "other valuable consideration" its meaning and scope could be wider and not restrictive, in light of preceding expression "cash" or "deferred payment", we have to accept the meaning of "valuable consideration" as laid down by the Supreme Court. Accordingly, we agree with Shri J.P. Bhattacharjee that for the aforesaid reason the transaction was not "sale". However, whether the despatch of goods was for "deferred payment " should also be considered. 14.. The assessee, it is true, at the instance of its agent had despatched goods outside the State to the companies and th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Devi Dass [1967] 20 STC 430 (SC) there was nothing left so far as the transaction was concerned for consideration. We have found it difficult to accept this submission because we do not find it reasonable to take the view that the transaction was over, because, in so far as the assessee was concerned, the goods having been despatched earlier and the agent having had received the goods in return, the transaction was not yet concluded and was still in process until the assessee had received the price or monetary value of the goods despatched earlier. The transaction of "sale" under the Act, in view of its purpose, clearly has very close nexus with the assessee, for the incidence of tax on the transaction falls on the assessee. Accordingly, i....