TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2000 (9) TMI 1007
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....laiming that the said turnover of Rs. 1,00,000 is not exigible to tax, because the machinery was leased out to a flour mill situate outside the State of Tamil Nadu. This contention was not accepted by the assessing authority and he proceeded to include the said sum of Rs. 1,00,000 as assessable at 3 per cent. He also levied penalty of Rs. 1,572 on account of short payment of surcharge. A further penalty of Rs. 10,734 was imposed under section 12(5)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 read with the Tamil Nadu Additional Sales Tax Act, 1970, for failure to submit correct return and adopting a lesser rate of additional sales tax. A sum of Rs. 120 was levied as penalty under section 22(2) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the question of inter-State sale. He confirmed the levy of penalties and dismissed the appeals. 3.. Two second appeals were preferred before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, namely, M.T.A. Nos. 20 and 21/92 against the orders of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. Before the Appellate Tribunal, the very same arguments were pressed. The second appellate authority also held that inasmuch as the agreement was entered into between the parties in Tamil Nadu and the fact that the lessor was in Tamil Nadu, gave jurisdiction to the authorities to levy tax under section 3-A of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. The Appellate Tribunal, however, agreed that the machineries were moved to Maharashtra State, but observed that on that account, it....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lace of business of Tvl. Salem District Co-operative Milk Producers Union Ltd., at Salem, was inspected by the Enforcement Wing Officers on February 24, 1989, it was found that the petitioner/assessee had leased out three machineries as per agreement dated April 7, 1988, to the said Salem Co-operative Milk Society. As per the accounts of the society, it was found that the assessee/dealer had received lease amounts as follows: April, 1988 to June, 1988 Rs. 4,50,000 July, 1988 to September, 1988 Rs. 4,50,000 October, 1988 to December, 1988 Rs. ... (amount waived) January, 1989 to March, 1989 Rs. 4,50,000 (Debit note dated February 8, 1989 raised and pending payment). Spares as per debit note dated February 8, 1989 pending payme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....il Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. 8.. In the appeals before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, specific contention was raised that article 286 of the Constitution of India restricted the State Legislature from imposing sales tax on outside sales, inter-State sales and import/export sales. It was specifically claimed that the movement of machineries from Gujarat to Tamil Nadu was an inter-State sale and therefore not liable to be taxed under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. Before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, there were two appeals, one against the turnover of Rs. 14,55,820 at 3 per cent the penalty levied under section 12(3) to the tune of Rs. 96,085, surcharge of Rs. 2,185 and additional sales tax of Rs. 18,198....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....th Century Finance Corpn. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra). The Supreme Court had to consider whether a transaction of transfer of right to use goods can be subjected to sales tax by more than one State. The issue arose before the Supreme Court of India, because some States levied tax on the assessees merely because the goods were found to be located in their States at the time of execution of contract, which execution took place outside the State. Some States levied tax when the goods were delivered in their States for use in pursuance of agreements of transfer executed outside their States. Some other States levied tax on such transactions of deemed sales on the ground that the agreements for transfer of right to use goods had been executed ....