TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1997 (11) TMI 501
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The assessing authority determined the total and taxable turnover at Rs. 41,76,77,025 and Rs. 7,80,11,468 respectively for the reasons stated in the assessment order. 2.. The dispute in the tax case revision is only confined to a sum of Rs. 3,84,650 and the dispute arises in the following manner: The assessee-company has a corporate office in Bombay. Another company by name, M/s. Indtech Speciality Chemicals Limited, Bangalore, has merged with the assessee-company with effect from January 1, 1992 as per the orders of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay dated January 27, 1993 in the Company Application No. 261 of 1992. The High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore also sanctioned the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... inter-State sale and the turnover would attract the provisions of section 8(2)(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and accordingly levied the tax on the said turnover. 3.. The assessee-dealer preferred an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner against the order of assessment made by the Commercial Tax Officer, Mannadi and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner also confirmed the order of the assessing officer on the ground that the "operative date" of the scheme of amalgamation is subsequent to the "transfer date", i.e., January 1, 1992. According to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, there are certain conditions that should be fulfilled both by the transferor as well as by the transfereecompanies for the implementation o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... case revision, Mr. B. Ravindran, learned counsel for the assessee, strongly placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Marshall Sons and Co. (India) Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer [1997] 223 ITR 809 wherein the Supreme Court held that the transfer date will be the date as specified in the scheme of amalgamation and it cannot be otherwise and submitted the view of the Tribunal is erroneous in law. 7.. Mr. T. Mathi, learned Government Advocate, on the other hand submitted that in this case if transfer date is taken as January 1, 1992, it would lead to tax evasion and applying the principle of the Supreme Court in the case of McDowell & Co. v. Commercial Tax Officer [1985] 59 STC 277; [1985] 154 ITR 148 it is submitted....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s true that while sanctioning the scheme, it is open to the company court to modify the said date and prescribe such date of amalgamation/transfer as it thinks appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case. If the court so specifies a date, such date would be the date of amalgamation/date of transfer. But where the court does not prescribe any specific date but merely sanctions the scheme presented to it, the date of amalgamation/date of transfer is the date specified in the scheme as 'the transfer date'. It cannot be otherwise." 9.. Hence, after the decision of the Supreme Court, it is clear that when the courts specify a date as the transfer date, the amalgamation would take effect from that date and when the court has not spe....