1997 (9) TMI 560

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of Maharashtra. 2.. It has sent those rods to the State of Tamil Nadu for manufacturing welded mesh, out of those rods. The mesh so manufactured, which is a different commercial product, was then sold to buyers outside the State of Tamil Nadu. The movement of the goods so sold, viz., the welded mesh commenced from the State of Tamil Nadu. 3.. The assessee had contended before the Tribunal that it has paid the Central sales tax on this sale to the State of Maharashtra, and therefore, it could not be compelled to pay tax once again to the State of Tamil Nadu. It was also contended by the assessee before the Tribunal, that the Central sales tax is levied under a Central enactment, which is payable to Government of India, and that it is ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ate turnovers, but the levy and collection will have to be made by the appropriate State which is the State from which the goods have moved pursuant to the sale, and had rejected the plea that if a wrong State has already assessed, levied tax, it would no longer be open to the State, from which the movement commenced to collect the tax. 6.. As there is no doubt as to the State which is competent to levy the tax the movement of the material that was sold to buyers outside the State having commenced from the State of Tamil Nadu, the appropriate State under section 9(1) of the Act, for levying and collecting the Central sales tax, is the State of Tamil Nadu. 7.. Learned counsel for the assessee, however, contended that since the tax has ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... following: "23. The said observation, no doubt, projects a point of view, but it has to be understood in the particular facts of that case. In that case, orders of sales tax authorities of any particular State had not become final. When more than one State sought to tax the same transaction on different basis, BHEL came to this Court by way of a writ petition under article 32 of the Constitution and certain directions were made by this Court. Moreover, the matter there was decided by the High Court and the various State Governments who were impleaded as respondents did not object to the jurisdiction of the High Court to decide the dispute-dispute as to the true nature of the transaction and who should tax it. In this matter, the situati....