TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (1) TMI 780
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Leyland Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu and Another, [(2004) 134 STC 473], with liberty to the parties to implead other States if found necessary and with a further observation that in the event of creation of another forum by a Parliamentary Act, it would be open to the parties to approach the said forum. Factual matrix :- 2. The respondent is an Assessee on the file of the Deputy Commercial Officer, Hosur and having its registered Head Office and factory at Hosur with branch outside the State like Dhanbad and Nagpur. With respect to the assessment year 1986-87, the respondent [hereinafter referred to as 'the assessee'] reported a total and taxable turnover of Rs.72,16,968/- and Rs.38,81,255/-. The Assessing Officer determined t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....turnover of Rs.48,31,850/- were only inter-State sales and not 'stock transfer' to its branches for open market sales and as such, the Appellate Authority was of the opinion that the Assessing Officer was justified in imposing penalty. Accordingly, the appeal was partly allowed and partly dismissed as per order dated 01.12.1988. 5. The order of the Appellate Authority was taken up before the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal set aside the imposition of penalty and gave a factual finding that the transaction involved in the matter represented only 'stock transfer' to the branches of the assessee for open market sale and it was not inter-State sale. 6. The order of the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... with respect to the movement of goods in Ashok Leyland Ltd. case [134 STC 473 (SC)] and held that by reason of Sec.6-A(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, a legal fiction has been created for the purpose of Central Sales Tax Act to the effect that where the movement of goods takes place otherwise than as a result of sale, the transaction would not be an inter-State sale. The Supreme Court also held that initial burden of proof is always on the dealer to show that the movement of goods was occasioned by reason of transfer of such goods other than by reason of sale and on a declaration made by a dealer to the said effect, an enquiry has to be made by the Assessing Authority for the purpose of passing an order and for arriving at a satisfa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ity [hereinafter referred as the Appellate Authority], the assessee preferred an appeal purportedly under Sec.20 of the Central Sales Tax Act. The Appellate Authority considered the maintainability of the appeal. The Appellate Authority was of the view that the order of the Taxation Tribunal was in favour of the assessee and it was only the petitioner who moved the High Court assailing the said order. The Appellate Authority also observed that the alleged inaction on the part of the State to move the High court to re-examine the matter does not confer jurisdiction on the Appellate Authority to assume the role of the High Court. 13. Ultimately, the appeal preferred by the assessee was rejected as not maintainable. 14. The Central Sales....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in T.C.No.1096/1990 has already been set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.943/2001, by directing this Court to decide the issue afresh, virtually, the order of the Tribunal is restored and it is only the said order which is to be considered afresh in accordance with the decision of the Supreme Court in Ashok Leyland Ltd. Case. Therefore, when there is a statutory authority now functioning with jurisdiction to decide the issue relating to cases under the Central Sales Tax Act and as the matter involves other states also, it is the said Authority who alone has got jurisdiction to decide the issue. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the matter has to be decided on merits by the Central Sales Tax Appellate A....