2013 (10) TMI 257

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....1996-97 on the basis of return filed by it. While doing so, the learned Assessing Officer ('A.O.') by his assessment order dated 27.9.1999 found that certain goods worth Rs.12,18,000/- were shown to have been transferred to assessee's Hyderabad Depot under the Excise Invoice No.535 dated 11.7.1996, but the goods were directly supplied to M/s. City General Stores, Gulaburga and in fact, the goods never reached Hyderabad Depot and consequently, treating the transfer as inter-State sale, the A.O. levied additional tax of Rs.1,21,800/- @ 10%. Aggrieved against the order dated 27.9.1999, the assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Commercial Taxes, Jodhpur ('Dy. Comm.') and it appears that certain documents in relat....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....mpany, (ii) that the goods were delivered to the Hyderabad Branch and this is found recorded in the books of the Branch, (iii) that the same goods were further sold by the Branch vide its Bill No. 37 dated 15.7.96 to M/s City General Stores, Gulburga along with AP Government's ST Form 10 No. 8858651, (iv) that 4% CST was charged in above Bill by the Branch, (v) that the goods were further despatched by the Branch from Hyderabad to Gulburga in vehicle No. RNS 4197 and a freight of Rs. 14,175/- was also paid on account of this and (vi) that the payment of the goods supplied to the Gulburga firm was also received by the Branch and accounted for in its books of accounts. In the face of all these facts, it is difficult for me to support the case....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....to Hyderabad Depot and on instruction of the above Depot, the goods were sold to M/s. City General Stores, Gulburga." Consequently, it was submitted that the orders passed by two authorities i.e. Dy. Comm. as well as the Tax Board deserves to be quashed and set aisde. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the finding recorded by Dy. Comm. and the Tax Board are findings of fact, which have been recorded after taking into consideration the material available on record. It was submitted that absence of pre-existing contract of sale between the respondent-assessee and Gulburga firm is sufficient to come to the conclusion that the transfer was merely a Depot transfer and not an inter-State sale. It was....