TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1989 (7) TMI 331
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Rs. 2,10,100.62 from Sahibabad to Delhi. The assessing officer held that the assessee had wrongly shown stock transfer at Rs. 2,10,100.62, but in fact, there were inter-State sales to that extent. He, accordingly, rejected the case of stock transfer and brought the inter-State sales at Rs. 2,10,100.62 to tax at the rate of 10 per cent. The assessee appealed to the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial), who agreed with the assessing officer that the assessee made inter-State sales in the garb of stock transfer. He was, however, of the view that each and every transaction is to be seen for determining the question whether there was stock transfer or inter-State sale. He therefore, held that all the transactions could not be said to be inter-S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ffice. As such there was no occasion to avoid any sales tax." Whether or not supply was made against "C" form or whether there was an intention to avoid the tax-these questions are not at all germane to answer the question whether there was sale in the course of inter-State trade. Section 3 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (the Act, 1956), defining the inter-State trade, so far as material, is reproduced below: "3. A sale or purchase of goods shall be deemed to take place in the course of inter-State trade or commerce, if the sale or purchase(a) occasions the movement of goods from one State to another; or (b) is effected by a transfer of documents of title to the goods during their movement from one State to another." When there....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Tribunal that the goods sent from the factory premises do not refer to the orders placed by various parties or that there was sufficient stock in Delhi to comply with these orders. The assessing officer has also given the details of the stock register of Delhi, which clearly show that the goods had been supplied to buyers immediately after having been received from the factory premises. The case of the Revenue is that the assessee did not possess sufficient stock in Delhi and that as and when orders were received the goods were being sent from Sahibabad to comply with those orders. In short the contention of the Revenue is that the movement of the goods was occasioned from the factory to Delhi directly pursuant to the orders received i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ises to the selling premises would be there but the movement of the goods covered by the sale orders would not precede the sales always and there would be nexus between the two. In the transactions referred to by the Tribunal in the impugned order, the assessing officer has clearly shown that the goods were being sent or even manufactured in some cases only after the orders having been received. This situation is also corroborated by Delhi stock register. To disprove the nexus between the orders received and the goods sent from Sahibabad, the assessee should have established that there was adequate stock most of the time in Delhi and that the movement of the goods was never occasioned from the factory to Delhi office pursuant to any sale or....