2008 (3) TMI 646

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....itioner has filed this petition. The petitioner is a company owned by the Government of Tamil Nadu having its head office at Chennai and branch at Arera Colony, Bhopal. The petitioner is engaged in the business of manufacturing and sale of medicines. It is stated that at times orders are directly made to the head office of the company at Chennai and the medicines are sold from the head office and in bulk transferred to the purchaser in various parts of the State. According to the petitioner when such sales are made, for the purpose of facilitating smooth transfer of the items sold form 75 are issued by the Bhopal branch to the head office at Chennai, only for the purpose of transfer of material. In all such cases also, the sales are e....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... could be levied on this form. As far as the other seven forms are concerned, it was pointed out that in all these cases sales were made directly by the head office of the company from Chennai to the Central Railway Authorities at Jabalpur and Bhopal and as the sale transaction was held in the State of Tamil Nadu, it was liable to be taxed under section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and no tax on these sales could be levied in view of section 79 of the Madhya Pradesh Commercial Tax Act. Shri H.S. Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, inviting my attention to the particulars of the twelve form 75, as contained in annexure P2, provisions of section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, section 79 of the Madhya Prade....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Shri Alok Pathak argued that as assessment is done properly and as the sales are effected within the State, commercial tax has been properly levied and the orders passed by the revisional authority and the assessing authority refusing to accept the explanation given with regard to the transactions indicated in the twelve form 75s are proper, no error is committed warranting interference. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The only dispute requiring consideration in this petition is with regard to the liability of the petitioner to pay commercial tax on the transactions effected by the twelve form 75s, as indicated in annexure P2. The respondents have not refuted the facts as are indicated in annexure....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... to be determined. If the particulars of form 75, as indicated in annexure P2, are reviewed, it would be seen that forms at serial Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 6 pertain to transaction for sale of vegetable seeds. All these transactions are exempted from payment of tax by virtue of entry No. 30 of Schedule I of section 15, that being so, the transactions indicated in these four form 75s cannot be assessed for the purposes of collecting commercial tax. As far as form 75, at serial No. 9 is concerned, the same does not relate to the petitioner and, therefore, cannot be assessed for the purposes of imposing liability on the petitioner. All the other transactions indicated at serial Nos. 2, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11 and 12 are sales made directly from the h....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....erence drawn by the authorities is wholly misconceived and perverse and without any basis. Merely because form 75 is issued from the branch office at Bhopal that, by itself, does not cast a liability on the petitioner to pay tax, further finding has to be recorded by the respondents to the effect that the sales transaction have taken place within the State of Madhya Pradesh and, therefore, liable to be taxed. Except for holding that form 75 is issued from the State of Madhya Pradesh, there is nothing to show that the sale transaction in fact took place within the State of Madhya Pradesh. The account books of the petitioners were perused and no finding is recorded on the basis of the account books to show that the sales are effected in th....