TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1991 (6) TMI 235
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....The assessee is distributor of carbon dioxide manufactured by Sardar Carbonic Gas Co., Bombay. The assessee received orders from its purchasers from Gujarat (Surat and Ahmedabad) for carbon dioxide cylinders or dry ice. The opponent-assessee used to place orders with the Bombay supplier which in turn used to send the carbon dioxide gas directly to the purchaser, as per the instructions of the opponent. The rate charged by the opponent from the purchasers was apparently higher than the rate charged by the Bombay supplier. As per the instructions of the opponent, the Bombay supplier took different transport receipts in the name of the purchasers and sent the goods directly to the purchasers. During the period in question certain goods were se....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s Tax did not accept the contention of the assessee and ordered that the sales be considered as local sales and assessments be made accordingly. For the purpose of deciding this reference it is not necessary to refer to the details as regards the quantity of sale. However, it may be noted that for all the three assessment periods, the total amount of tax in dispute came to Rs. 3,360, Rs. 4,768 and Rs. 8,605, respectively. 3. The opponent-assessee felt aggrieved by the order passed by the revisional authority, and carried the matter before the Tribunal by way of further revision as provided under section 67 of the Act. Before the Tribunal the opponent-assessee contended that the transaction between the opponent-assessee and the pur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ale between the opponent-assessee and the Bombay supplier was covered by the provisions of section 3(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. This is so because there was a contract of sale between the opponent-assessee and the Bombay supplier. This contract of sale occasioned the movement of goods from State of Maharashtra to the State of Gujarat. Therefore the conditions for attracting the provisions of section 3(a) were present. In this view of the matter as far as the first sale between the opponent-assessee and the Bombay supplier is concerned, it is beyond the pale of controversy. 6.. The controversy is with regard to the second sale between the opponent-assessee and the purchasers at Surat and Ahmedabad. The Tribunal, rely....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e overall facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal found that there was sale by transfer of documents of title to the goods. It may be that the actual documents were not taken out in the name of the opponent-assessee, and there was no actual endorsement made thereon by the opponent-assessee. But the supplier at Bombay took out the transport receipt/railway receipt in the name of the purchasers at Surat/ Ahmedabad at the instance of the opponent-assessee. This is how the sale was effected by transfer of documents. This is the reason why the Tribunal held that the second sale was inter-State sale within the meaning of section 3(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. 8.. In the case of Bayyana Bhimayya [1961] 12 STC 147 (SC), the fa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d the Bombay supplier. Another between the opponent-assessee and the purchasers at Surat and Ahmedabad. There was no privity of contract between the Bombay supplier and the purchasers at Surat and Ahmedabad. Thus far there is no controversy. It is, however, contended that since the documents of title were directly sent in the name of the purchasers at Surat and Ahmedabad it should be held sufficient to infer that the delivery was taken by the purchasers at Surat and Ahmedabad and not at Bombay. This contention is sought to be supported by further fact that the bills were also issued by the opponent-assessee in the name of the purchasers. The aforesaid argument cannot be accepted for the simple reason that when the transport receipts/railway....