TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (9) TMI 248
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....missioner Tax Tribunal dated 06.09.2013. The revisionist is a Company engaged in the business of Leasing and Hire Purchase particularly leasing of the equipment, huge machinery, fleet of automobiles, office equipment. The revisionist is a financial lessor. 14 lease agreements were entered into by the revisionist company for the supply of equipment. Copy of the two agreements, one executed at Bombay dated 27.03.1995 between the revisionist-lessor and M/s. Rajiender Steels Ltd, and another agreement dated 18.09.1995 entered into between the revisionist-lessor and M/s. Sakura Seimitsu India Ltd. at Delhi, have been filed as Annexure-1 and Annexure-2 to the supplementary affidavit filed by the revisionist. An assessment was made by the Asses....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rat Ji Agarwal, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Mudit Agarwal, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Sanjeev Shankhdhar, learned counsel for the respondents. Sri Bharat Ji Agarwal has referred to the two lease agreements, one executed at Bombay and the other executed at Delhi in order to show that the agreements had been executed outside the state of U.P. He further submitted that an examination of the Schedule to the agreement executed between the revisionist and M/s. Sakura Seimitsu India Ltd. at Delhi, Annexure-1 to the supplementary affidavit would show that the location of the goods was shown as A-36 Sector VII and B-110, Sector V, NOIDA 201301 U.P. He has also referred to Clause 6.3 of the agreement to show that the le....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ence of the goods even though the agreements had been filed before the Tribunal and therefore the Tribunal ought to have recorded a finding to that effect. Reference has been made by the learned Senior Counsel to the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in (2000) 6 SCC 12, 20th Century Finance Corporation Ltd and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra. So far as first question, namely, that the place where the delivery of goods is made cannot be made a basis of levy of tax on sales of goods, the Supreme Court in para 25 of the judgment has held as follows: "We, therefore, find that the location or delivery of goods within the state cannot be made a basis for levy of tax on sales of goods. Under general law, merely because the goods are locat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....delivery of goods cannot constitute a basis for levy of tax on the transfer of right to use any goods. We are, therefore, of the view that where the goods are in existence, the taxable event on the transfer of the rights to use goods occurs when a contract is executed between the lessor and the lessee and situs of sale of such a deemed sale would be the place where the contract in respect thereof is executed. Thus, where goods to be transferred are available and a written contract is executed between the parties, it is at that point situs of taxable event on the transfer of right to use goods would occur and situs of sale of such a transaction would be the place where the contract is executed." In para 35 of the judgment the Supreme Cour....