AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2003 (11) TMI 575
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....wing the exemption claimed by the assessee for branch transfer of T.V. receivers to its branch at Bombay. On appeal, S.T.A. No. 226 of 1978, the assessment order was set aside and the matter was remanded. Fresh assessment was completed on February 3, 1982 allowing the claim of exemption. However, the Deputy Commissioner reopened the assessment under section 35 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 by order dated August 24, 1982, and remanded the matter. Assessee filed appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal and the Tribunal by order dated March 16, 1983 confirmed the decision of the Deputy Commissioner and remanded the matter back to the assessing authority since the matter requires fresh appraisal. Assessing authority passed fresh assessment order disallowing the claim as per order dated September 15, 1983. Assessee filed appeal S.T.A. No. 315 of 1983. Appellate authority confirmed the assessment by order dated January 16, 1984. On second appeal the Tribunal set aside the order of the appellate order dated May 20, 1987. Tribunal took the view that the goods were sent by the assessee only by way of stock transfer to Bombay and the actual sale took place in Bombay and th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing inter-State movement of goods, goods must actually bring from one State to another and such movement of goods must be from State to another State where the sale closes. 6.. In order to establish the contention, counsel on either side placed reliance on several decisions. Counsel for the assessee Dr. K.B. Muhamed Kutty placed reliance on the decisions of the apex Court in Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes [1970] 26 STC 354, Kelvinator of India Ltd. v. State of Haryana [1973] 32 STC 629, Balabhagas Hulaschand v. State of Orissa [1976] 37 STC 207 and Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited v. Union of India [1996] 102 STC 373. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Gujarat High Court in Bharatkhand Textile Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. State of Gujarat [1964] 15 STC 885 and also the decision of the Orissa High Court in State of Orissa v. Vijayalaxmi Timber Depot [2002] 126 STC 169. Placing reliance on the abovesaid decisions, counsel contended that movement of goods which takes place independently of a contract of sale would not fall within the ambit of clause (a) of section 3 of the Central Sales Tax Act. Counsel submitted that transacti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....;s case [1997] 105 STC 152, Government Pleader submitted that mere fact that assessee was assessed under the General Sales Tax Act of a State is not the criteria to determine whether a sale is inter-State or not. 8.. The KELTRON is admittedly a company owned by the Government of Kerala incorporated under the Companies Act having its registered office in Kerala. ECIL is also a registered company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its office in State of Andhra Pradesh and having its branch at Bombay. Placing reliance on the agreement, counsel contended that the agreement envisaged only for technical know-how to KELTRON and there was no agreement of sale. We find it difficult to accept the argument of assessee. Movement of goods from Kerala to Bombay succeeded the contract of sale. Contract of sale dated June 1, 1974 is the only incident based on which goods moved from State of Kerala to Bombay. As held in English Electric Co.'s case [1976] 38 STC 475 (SC), when the movement of goods from one State to another is an incident of the contract of sale it is a sale in the course of inter-State trade falling under section 3(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act. Apart from th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sidered at the appropriate time after the quality of the receiver is well established in the market. KSEDC shall strictly follow the inspection and testing procedures prescribed by ECIL during the process of manufacture of T.V. receivers. ECIL will be at liberty to post at or send periodically to the television receiver factory of KSEDC their inspectors to supervise the processes and ensure that these procedures are followed. To ensure that the quality of the T.V. receivers is maintained, only those components approved by ECIL and detailed in the bill of materials shall be used in the manufacture of these T.V. receivers. KSEDC shall arrange for the packing and forwarding of the T.V. receivers as per the specifications given by ECIL. KSEDC shall deliver the sets at such places and in such manner as desired by ECIL. On delivery ECIL shall pay 50 per cent of the agreed price plus the excise duty paid by KSEDC to the excise authorities on the sets delivered. The balance will be paid after satisfactory testing and acceptance of the goods by ECIL. If any of the commercial T.V. receivers supplied by KSEDC are found defective on inspection by ECIL at the place of delivery, such of tho....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he case of goods other than declared goods, be calculated at the rate of ten per cent or at the rate applicable to the sale or purchase of such goods inside the appropriate State, whichever is higher and for the purpose of making any such calculation any such dealer, shall be deemed to be a dealer liable to pay tax under the sales tax law. Therefore, we find Tribunal is justified in deciding the dispute in favour of reduced rate of tax granted as per S.R.O. No. 710/76 and the assessee is deemed to be a dealer under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. Since liability of the assessee as per the above order, the rate adopted by the assessing authority is 16 per cent and the challenge against S.R.O. cannot be considered under section 8(1) of the Central Sales Tax Act. This question is also answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. 11.. In T.R.C. Nos. 15 of 2003, 53 of 2003, 33 of 2003, 66 of 2003, 52 of 2003, 51 of 2003 and 40 of 2003 the following question has been referred. "Whether the Appellate Tribunal is justified in not allowing the claim in respect of products of ancillary units covered by G.O. (Rt) No. 38/95/TD dated February 2, 1995? Is not the disallow....