TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (11) TMI 818
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ver in a sum of Rs.3,57,41,932.63 as the consignment sale which claim was rejected by the Assessing Officer and treated the transaction as inter-state sale falling under Section 3(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 is correct or not. 3. The brief facts leading to the case in a nutshell are hereunder: The respondent is a manufacturer of C.T.D. Bars, M.S. Rounds, M.S. Angles and M.S. Casted Blocks and an assessee on the file of the Commercial Tax Officer, Park Town-II, Assessement Circle. In respect of the Assessment Year 1996-97, the respondent was assessed on a total and taxable turnover of Rs.3,57,41,933/- in the CST Order dated 28.12.1998 in which the claim of the assessee in respect of the said turnover as consignment sale throu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at the agents of the assessee have sold the goods on the date of the arrival from the State of Tamil Nadu and there was no evidence to show that the consignment received by the agents were taken to the stock and thereafter sold to various customers. Both the First Appellate Authority as well as the Tribunal have held that the copies of the sale pattials, invoices rendered by the agents and the excise gate pass cum consignment sale note would show that the transactions are consignment sales and not inter-state sales. The said authorities have also held that there is no evidence of any Hundi drawn by the assessee or any cash paid by the agents and received by the assessee before the arrival of the goods at the hands of the assessee. 5. The....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 7. In the judgment reported in VOL.95 1994 STC 273 [SRI GANESAN TRADERS v. UNION OF INDIA] the Hon'ble High Court was pleased to hold that the burden of proof is on the assessee to prove to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer that particulars furnished in Form-F are true and a genuine. The said issue was also confirmed by the subsequent judgment of the Division Bench reported in VOL.96 1995 STC 98 [A.DHANDAPANI v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANOTHER] wherein also the Division Bench was pleased to hold that it is for the dealer to prove that the particulars mentioned in Form-F are true. Therefore, a reading of the above judgments would indicate that in the present case on hand, the assessee has proved with documentary evidence before th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pinion that the transaction involved in the present case is merely a stock transfer from the assessee to its agents and therefore, the same is not an inter-state sale. 10. The issue can be looked into from another angle as well. As observed above, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner as well as the Appellate Tribunal have considered the entire records available and the documents have been verified by the department representative as well. Hence orders have been passed by the Appellate Authorities on a consideration of the materials available on record. Therefore, when orders have been passed by the Appellate Tribunal confirming the order of the First Appellate Authority based upon the materials available on record, this Court exercising ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on in setting aside the judgment of the appellate court. Though not specifically stated, the phraseology employed by the High Court in its judgment goes to show that the High Court has exercised its certiorari jurisdiction for correcting the judgment of the appellate court. In Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai this Court has ruled that to be amenable to correction in certiorari jurisdiction, the error committed by the court or authority on whose judgment the High Court was exercising jurisdiction, should be an error which is self-evident. An error which needs to be established by lengthy and complicated arguments or by indulging in a long-drawn process of reasoning, cannot possibly be an error available for correction by writ of certiorari. ....