2014 (5) TMI 761

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e hands of State Trading Corporation? T.C.(R). No. 1618 of 2008 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances, the Tribunal is correct in affirming the delivery of raw rubber taken by the assessee from State Trading Corporation, Chennai before despatch of goods to the factories outside the State is inter-state sale? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances, it is correct to hold that purchase and transportation of goods outside the State by the assessee were part of the sale transactions in relevance to the facts of the case? T.C.(R). No. 1686 of 2008 Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in affirming the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner that the raw rubber taken delivery by the assessee from the State Trading Corporation and transported to its registered office, Hindupur is an interstate transaction not an intra state transaction? T.C.(R). No. 2232 of 2008 Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the stand taken that the transaction of the assessee that the State Trading Corporation would amount to last purchase of raw rubber in the State of Tamil Nadu and liable to tax as such? T.C.(R). No. 1....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sing of the end product mentioned in Sl.No. 4 of the application viz., Tread Rubber, Cold curing cement, Envelops and Automotive tubes. Clause 11 (ii) also contained declaration from the assessee that the allotted natural rubber shall be used only for the assessee's factories and no portion of it would be sold or permitted to be used for any other purpose without the written permission of State Trading Corporation. Clause 10(iv) also pointed out that State Trading Corporation shall service the requirement in part/ full depending upon the availability of imported / indigenous quantities vis-a-vis requirement registered by the actual users. The application also contained the undertaking of the assessee to take delivery of Rubber from State Trading Corporation's godown at Madras or from a Station where State Trading Corporation had made arrangements for its distribution. It is further seen from the documents placed before this court that the allotment order dated 23.7.1998 indicated the name of the Elgi Tyre & Tread Limited, Thumakunta, Kirikera, Hindupur, Andhrapradesh and Elgi Tyre and Tread Limited, Korakadu Village, Mangalam PO, Villianur Via Pondicherry. The despatch documents al....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....documents which clearly supported the findings of the Tribunal and submitted that going by the law declared by the Apex Court reported in 60 STC 301 SAHNEY STEEL v. PRESS WORKS LTD v. COMML. TAX OFFICER, which in turn had applied the law declared by the Apex Court reported in 38 STC 475 - ENGLISH ELECTRIC COMPANY OF INDIA LIMITED v. DEPUTY COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, and subsequent decision reported in 90 STC 1 CO-OPERATIVE SUGARS (CHITTUR) LTD v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU, rightly the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the transactions were only interstate sale. 5. Countering the claim of the assessee, learned Government Advocate (Taxes) appearing for the Revenue, the petitioner before this Court, submitted that the movement from the State to the other States was not pursuant to any agreement between the supplier and the purchaser, and the assessee had taken delivery of the rubber and only thereafterwards sent the same by way of private transfer to the factories situated outside the State. Consequently, the findings of the Tribunal were not borne out by any material. He further pointed out the earlier decision of this Court dated 13.8.2012 rendered in T.C.(A). No. 2115 of 2006, 1717 and ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e's factories situated in Andhra Pradesh and Pondicherry were mentioned. The proforma invoice and delivery order were in the name of respective factories. In the background of these facts, we held that the assessee is entitled to succeed. 8. It may be seen that in the decision reported in 60 STC 301 SAHNEY STEEL v. PRESS WORKS LTD v. COMML. TAX OFFICER, the Apex Court considered the similar situation, where the assessee engaged in the manufacture and sale of stampings and laminations made out of steel sheets had its registered office and factory at Hyderabad. It had branches at Bombay, Calcutta and Coimbatore, which were engaged in effecting sales and looking after sales promotion and liaison work. The branches received orders from customers within and outside their respective State. Based on the orders placed by the customers within and outside their respective State, the company manufactured the goods according to the designs and specifications supplied by customers at its factory at Hyderabad and despatched them to the respective branches by way of transfer of stock. The branches raised the bills and received the sale price. On the contention that there was only stock transfer,....