TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (5) TMI 721
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n-transit sales after taking constructive or notional delivery of the goods to the value of Rs.9,68,264.70. Thus, apart from assessing the actual suppression detected in stock variation, the assessment for assessment year 1995-96 was taken up proposing to disallow the claim for exemption under Section 6(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act. The assessee contended that after the purchase, even before taking delivery, they effected further interstate sales to their end users within and outside the State of Tamilnadu. Thus, by filing EI and EII and Form C declaration, the assessee made claim under Section 6(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act. The said claim was rejected by the Assessing Authority by taking a view that the assessee had effected sale after arrival of the goods at Coimbatore after taking the constructive delivery of goods at Coimbatore. Thus, the Assessing Authority viewed that the assessee was not entitled to exemption under Section 6(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act. The Assessing Officer pointed out that verification of the records showed that M/s.Mahaveer Chemicals were appointed as registered dealers to deal with the chemicals viz., liquid/ gaseous chemicals manufactured by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....documents clearly pointed out the destination as Coimbatore, the assessee had to necessarily prepare further documents after taking delivery of the goods for further movement to the customers. Accordingly the assessee instructed the transporter to prepare separate lorry receipts in the name of the ultimate customer or end user. Thereupon, the transporter had to start the journey with the help of another set of trip sheet, lorry way bill etc. Thus, in the absence of any material to show that the journey continued without any break, the first Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the assessee was not entitled to claim exemption under Section 6(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act. In so holding, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner referred to the decision of this Court reported in 89 STC 481 STATE OF TAMIL NADU v. N. RAMU BROTHERS, and held that when once the condition as regards delivery spoken to in the explanation I to section 3(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act is satisfied and the link in the movement is snapped, the assessee could not claim the benefit of exemption under Section 6(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act. In the light of the above facts, the Appellate Assistant Comm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s rightly rejected by the Assessing Officer. Consequently, no exception could be taken to the assessment made on the assessee. 8. Commenting on the order of the Tribunal that without any material, the Tribunal had merely accepted the contention of the assessee that the goods were never unloaded to take delivery thereon, learned Special Government Pleader further pointed out to the nature of goods transported and submitted that for the purpose of considering the claim, leaving aside the fact that being gaseous substances, there could not be a physical delivery, it is not necessary that there should be in fact unloading of goods to take physical delivery. Even on the aspect of constructive delivery, when the documents clearly showed that the movement of goods from Cochin ended in Coimbatore itself and thereafter, the assessee prepared fresh documents for further movement, there was clear indication that after taking constructive delivery, the assessee effected further sales. 9. Going by Section 3(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act, which contemplates transfer of documents of title to the goods during their movement from one State to another State, even on facts, the claim of the asses....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ond interstate sale. While there is no dispute as to the position of law interstate sales could be made between two dealers residing in the same street, yet, for the purpose of section 3(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act, the requisite condition has to be satisfied that there is a sales while the goods are in transit, sale taken place by transfer of documents of title to the goods during the movement from one State to another. Thus a reading of Section 3(b) and 6(2) of the Act show that the burden of proving that there is a second and subsequent interstate sale effected by a transfer of documents of title to the goods during the movement from one State to another rests on the assessee. 13. As far as the present case is concerned, as already pointed out the documents accompanying the movement of the goods shows that the journey started from Cochin to Coimbatore. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner rightly pointed out that there was no obligation on the part of the carrier to transport the goods further to any place beyond Coimbatore. Thus the subsequent arrangement that the assessee had with the same transporter to carry the goods to another place for a different person however did ....