TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1990 (10) TMI 342
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... order in T.A. No. 810 of 1979 relating to a turnover of Rs. 3,828 which has been held, by the Tribunal, to be the local sale in Karnataka and not chargeable as inter-State sales by Tamil Nadu under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. T.C. (R) No. 74 of 1981 is against the order in T.M.P. No. 67 of 1980 preferred by the Revenue for enhancement of turnover relating to a turnover of Rs. 2,51,540 held by the Tribunal (concurring with the Appellate Assistant Commissioner) to be local sales in Karnataka, negativing the contention of the Revenue that they were inter-State sales assessable to tax under the Central Sales Tax Act by the State of Tamil Nadu. 3.. The question for consideration in T.C. (R) No. 75 of 1981 is whether the turnover in disp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... factory at Bangalore controlled and operated by its Bangalore branch. This branch made its own purchases, produced the goods in the factory at Bangalore and sold them locally. In a few cases it could not produce the goods ordered by its buyers, in the factory at Bangalore and so placed orders for the said goods to its Madras office. The Madras office, in turn, produced the goods so ordered by the branch office at Bangalore and transferred them to that branch to enable it to execute the orders from its buyers. On receipt of the goods from the head office the branch included them in its stocks and sold them to its buyers. So, the Madras office has no connection with the ultimate buyers from the Bangalore branch. The abovesaid turnover of Rs.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1978. The goods were delivered to the buyer on March 20, 1978 as shown by challan. The ownership and risk rested with the Bangalore branch office till the goods are delivered to the buyer. All the charges for transferring the goods from Madras to the branch office at Bangalore were met by the assessee and they were not passed on to the buyer. The affidavit from the abovesaid buyer Sri Rajam Transport was also filed stating that the said buyer placed orders only with the branch office at Bangalore and that he took delivery only from the office at Bangalore. 5.. In the above circumstances, both the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal have held concurrently that the abovesaid turnover is not exigible to tax by the State of Tam....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eader for the Revenue is concerned, we find that the facts therein were as follows: The appellant-company therein had its registered office at Calcutta and branches at Bombay and other places. It had its main factory at Madras. A Bombay buyer wrote to the Bombay branch of the appellant, asking for lowest quotation of the goods. The Bombay branch wrote to the Madras branch, giving all the specifications and stating that the goods were for the Bombay buyer. The Madras branch, in reply referred to the order of the Bombay buyer, giving the required particulars and mentioned that the price was f.o.r. Madras. The Bombay branch, thereafter gave these particulars that the goods would be manufactured at the Madras factory. The Bombay buyer pla....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd that it was the Madras factory, which pursuant to the covenant in the contract of sale, caused the movement of goods from Madras to Bombay. The sale was, therefore, liable to be taxed under section 3(a) of the Central Act. 10.. It would be clear that there are very many distinguishing features between the facts in the present case and the facts in the abovesaid case before the Supreme Court. In the present case, first of all, the contract between the buyer and the Bangalore branch did not contemplate any movement of goods from Tamil Nadu to Karnataka.. It shows only delivery at Bangalore and payment of local sales tax of Karnataka State and there is no mention therein about the manufacture of the goods at Madras. Further, the goods we....