TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (12) TMI 459
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ls and hire charges received by the petitioner in Kerala for sales tax. Even though the petitioner filed successive appeals, assessments were confirmed by the appellate authorities, including the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. These tax revision cases are filed in this court against the final orders of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal upholding the levy. The assessments involved are for the years 1989-90 to 1991-92 and from 1994-95 to 1997-98. The revisions for the first three years are reaching this court a second round. In the first round of revisions against orders of Tribunal upholding assessments, this court remanded the case back to the Tribunal once again for considering the issues raised after verifying the facts pertaining to del....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... M. That the respondents for the State of Tamil Nadu have no jurisdiction to proceed to assess, demand tax or penalty invoking section 3-A of the TNGST Act, 1959 in respect of same transactions which have been assessed to tax by various other respondent-States other than the State of Tamil Nadu and in respect of which the petitioners have also paid the appropriate lease taxes. In view of the above grounds admitting liability for sales tax on these transactions in States like Kerala raised by the petitioner before the Supreme Court while challenging assessments made in Tamil Nadu, we feel there is no bona fides in the petitioner's case before the sales tax authorities in Kerala that they are not liable to pay sales tax on lease ren....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... any State in India, which is obviously defeating the statutory amendments authorised by Constitutional amendment, we are bound to decide questions of law raised in the tax revision cases. However, since the Supreme Court has comprehensively dealt with the scope of levy of tax on leasing transactions in the decision referred above what remains is only to apply the decision on the factual situation. So far as challenge against levy of tax for hire charges, the issue is covered against the petitioner by the decision of this court referred above, which is stated to be confirmed by the Supreme Court. Before proceeding to consider the issues raised we have to first refer to the nature of transactions carried on by the petitioner. In order to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s of a specific case of lease and they have noted that in respect of a lease agreement executed by the petitioner with a hotel company at Ernakulam on September 28, 1993, the purchase order was placed on the supplier of goods only on October 16, 1993 and goods were sold by the suppliers on November 17, 1993. In other words, the purchase of goods outside and delivery to lessees is made in Kerala after two months from the date of execution of lease agreement. The pattern of business is admittedly the same and therefore lease agreements executed by the petitioner were in respect of leasing of equipments which were not in existence at that time, or at least not purchased or possessed by the petitioner, and therefore lease agreements were for le....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vi Rathi v. Government of Andhra Pradesh [1961] 12 STC 147 (SC) and contended that the lease and hire-purchase transactions are inter-State in nature because in terms of the request by the petitioner suppliers have delivered the goods to public carriers for ultimate delivery to lessees or hirers. We are unable to uphold this contention of the petitioner, because petitioner itself has no case that public carriers are arranged by lessees or hirers to take delivery of the goods from manufacturers/suppliers arranged by the petitioner. In fact after entering into lease agreements, the petitioner has admittedly undertaken the responsibility to purchase and deliver the goods to the lessees or hirers even though the goods so manufactured are identi....