TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (8) TMI 688
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ll goods sent or received for job work or goods returned. As all these petitions do not involve adjudication of any facts but raise a common question of law, i.e., interpretation of the provisions of section 6A of the Central Act, they have been heard together and are being decided at the admission stage itself. C.M.W.P. No. 302 of 2007 is being treated as a leading petition and its facts are given below: The petitioner is a public limited company and is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of iron billets and ingots. It is also engaged in the activity of sale of iron and steel rounds, bars, flats, etc. It is a registered dealer under the provisions of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as, "the Act")....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....participated. The petitioner was asked to submit form F in respect of the ex-U.P. transaction of job work performed by it or got done by others to which it submitted a reply stating therein that no form F is required for such transaction. The explanation was rejected. However, respondent No. 3 granted time up to March 31, 2007 for submitting form F. Another notice was issued on February 27, 2007 calling upon the petitioner to submit declaration form F. The action of respondent No. 3 in demanding form F in respect of transaction of job work failing which tax would be imposed, including the circular dated November 28, 2005 issued by the Commissioner of Trade Tax, U.P., Lucknow, are under challenge in the present writ petition. In some of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....act or otherwise), certain powers of the bailor in respect of his property and further the bailee has no power to make contract on the bailor's behalf nor can he make the bailor liable simply as bailor for any act he does. He also relied upon a decision of the apex court in the case of Hindustan Aeronautics Limited v. State of Orissa [1984] 55 STC 327, wherein the apex court has held that there is no rigid or inflexible rule which applies to all transactions which can indicate distinction between a contract for sale and a contract for work and labour. It has further been held that whether a particular contract was one of sale or for work and labour, depends upon the main object of the purpose and in a contract for sale the main object ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ration to the various pleas raised by the learned counsel for the parties. We find that, under sub-clause (ii) of clause (g) of section 2 of the Central Act, a transfer of property in goods whether as goods or in some other form, involved in execution of a works contract, is included in the definition of the word "sale". Section 6 is the charging section and creates liability to tax on inter-State sales. Section 6A puts the burden of proof on the person claiming transfer of goods otherwise than by way of sale and not liable to pay tax under the Central Act. The burden is to be discharged only by furnishing of declaration form F. The provisions of sections 6 and 6A of the Central Act came up for consideration in the case of Ashok Leyland Lt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t or principal, as the case may be. For the purpose of discharge of such burden of proof, the dealer is required to furnish to the assessing authority within the prescribed time a declaration duly filled and signed by the principal officer of the other place of business or his agent or principal. Such declaration would contain the prescribed particulars in the prescribed form obtained from the prescribed authority. Along with such declaration, the dealer is required to furnish the evidence of such dispatch of goods by reason of Act 20 of 2002. In the event, if it fails to furnish such declaration, by reason of legal fiction, such movement of goods would be deemed for all purposes of the said Act to have been occasioned as a result of sale. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....under section 6 of the Central Act. The submission that the transactions where the goods are sent for job work or received for doing job work, do not amount to sale would depend upon the contract entered into between the parties and would be the subject-matter of examination by the assessing authority. Even otherwise, under section 2(g)(ii) of the Central Act, transfer of goods used in execution of works contract is treated to be a sale. If the petitioner claims that it is not liable to tax on the transfer of goods from U.P. to ex-U.P., then it would have to discharge the burden placed upon it under section 6A by filing declaration form F. It would be immaterial whether the person to whom the goods are sent for or received after job work i....