1992 (2) TMI 351

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sp; The facts as found by the Tribunal are that in respect to the year 1972-73 the dealer was carrying on the business of operating an automobile workshop and service station at Delhi. It also sold auto parts. The claim of the dealer was that it sold auto parts to different departments of Himachal Pradesh and Haryana Governments in the course of inter-State trade and it produced "D" form. The manner in which the transactions used to take place was that these departments used to send their vehicles to Delhi and the requisite parts would be fitted therein and then the vehicles would go back to Himachal Pradesh or Haryana. The assessing authority as well as the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax did not consider these sales as being in ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....no written agreement. What happens is that vehicles are sent by the State departments from outside Delhi to the dealer's workshop and auto parts are fitted therein and then the vehicles leave Delhi. In the absence of any written agreement what has to be determined is whether the movement of goods, viz., the auto parts from Delhi to outside Delhi was occasioned by the sale of those parts. Learned counsel for the department has vehemently contended that the sale was complete in Delhi when the auto parts were fixed in the vehicles. While relying upon the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax [1981] 48 STC 351 it has been submitted that there was no term ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e Trade Commissioner at Delhi, after having taken the custody of the goods did not despatch the goods to Jammu and Kashmir the dealer, namely, the DCM, would in no way have been affected by it. After the delivery of vanaspati ghee was made at Delhi and the price received, the DCM had no further interest in the matter. In the present case, however, the transaction is not complete with the fixation of auto parts in the vehicles of the State Governments. What is of vital importance to note is that as observed by the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax in his order that according to the dealer "sale prices were received after the goods were approved by the Government department authority situated in the other States". This contention has not....