TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (7) TMI 1004
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....te sale. He further submits that the purchases made by the petitioner is an inter-state sale and, therefore, a direction in the nature of mandamus may be issued to the respondent no. 5 to accept Form-C from the petitioner against the auction purchases of timber by the petitioner. He submits that the amount of value added tax realized by the respondent no. 5 from the petitioner is refundable, inasmuch as the auction sale in question is an inter-state sale and, therefore, it would fall out side the purview of out of the U.P. VAT Act. 4. In support of his submissions he relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Surpeme Court in the case of State of Orissa and another Vs. K.B. Saha and Sons Industries Pvt. Ltd. and others, (2007) 6 VLJ 8 (SC). 5. Sri C.B. Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the auction sale made by the forest corporation was complete the moment bid of the petitioner was accepted. The bid took place within the State of U.P. He, therefore, submits that since the sale was complete in all respect within the State of U.P. and as such the sale was an intra-state sale and, therefore, no illegality has been committed by the respondent no. 5 to realize VA....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n filed along with the writ petition. Merely, the approval of sale by public auction dated 23rd June, 2011 has been filed as Annexure No. 2 from which it appears that the bid of the petitioner for certain lots of timber was accepted by the U.P. Forest Corporation for Rs. 8,14,700/-. Clause 3 of the aforesaid approval specifically provides that if the timber is not removed by the auction purchaser within the specified time or within a further period of 15 days on payment of late fees then the amount deposited by the purchaser shall be forfeited and the Forest Corporation shall also become the owner of the timber of the lots, kept in the depot. This indicates that the delivery to the petitioner of the timber auctioned was complete at the depot of the Forest Corporation on payment of the agreed amount of consideration. 8. The question whether a particular sale is an intra-state sale or inter-state sale is basically a question of fact which can be appropriately adjudicated by the statutory authorities under the Act on appreciation of evidence brought on record including conditions of the tender. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also not disputed the fact that the assessment of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(i) a transfer, otherwise than in pursuance of a contract, of property in any goods for cash, deferred payment or other valuable consideration; (ii) a transfer of property in goods (whether as goods or in some other form) involved in the execution of a works contract; (iii) a delivery of goods on hire-purchase or any system of payment by installments; (iv) a transfer of the right to use any goods for any purpose (whether or not for a specified period) for cash, deferred payment or other valuable consideration; (v) a supply of goods by any unincorporated association or body of persons to a member thereof for cash, deferred payment or other valuable consideration; (vi) a supply, by way of or as part of any service or in any other manner whatsoever, of goods, being food or any other article for human consumption or any drink (whether or not intoxicating), where such supply or service, is for cash, deferred payment or other valuable consideration, but does not include a mortgage or hypothecation of or a charge or pledge on goods; 12. In the present set of facts, we are concerned only with Clause (a) of Section 3 of the Act. A sale of goods can be said to have taken place in the c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....being transfer of property becomes taxable under Section 3(a) "if the movement of goods from one State to another is under a covenant or incident of the contract of sale" 16. In the case of Union of India and another Vs. M/s K.G. Khosla & Company Ltd. and others, (1979) 2 SCC 242 para 15, the three judges Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court explained the provisions of Section 3(a) of the Act, as under :- "It is true that in the instant case the contracts of sales did not require or provide that goods should be moved from Faridabad to Delhi. But it is not true to say that for the purposes of section 3(a) of the Act it is necessary that the contract of sale must itself provide for and cause the movement of goods or that the movement of goods must be occasioned specifically in accordance with the terms of the contract of sale. The true position in law is as stated in Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd., Bombay v. S. R. Sarkar and others (1961) 1 SCR 379, wherein Shah, J. speaking for the majority observed that clauses (a) and (b) of section 3 of the Act are mutually exclusive and that section 3(a) covers sales in which the movement of goods from one State to another "is the result of a cove....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itle in the goods passed to the buyer as the goods were specific goods i.e. goods which were auctioned in full lots and this event took place at Fort Cochin which was in the State of Madras. But in the case of unascertained goods the title in the goods does not pass to the buyer unless and until the goods are ascertained. It was for this reason that a distinction was drawn by the Sales tax Appellate Tribunal between goods which were sold in full lots and those which were sold in portions. In regard to the former it was held that the title passed as soon as the hammer fell but not so in regard to the latter and therefore the sale of "full lots' was held to have taken place outside the State of Travancore Cochin and of portions of lots inside that State. The case was consequently remanded to the Sales tax Officer for determining the amount of the tax. " (Emphasis supplied by me) 18. In the case of Consolidated Coffee Ltd. and another Vs. Coffee Board, Bangalore, (1980) 3 SCC 358, a three judges Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the sale by auction, provisions of Section 64 of the Sales of Goods Act and provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act and held in para 26 as u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Willingdon Island. i.e., within the territory of Travancore Cochin State and were liable to sales tax under the Act or whether the sales were 'outside sales' and, therefore, not subject to sales tax in the State of Travancore Cochin in view of Article 286(1) (a) read with the Explanation. This Court after referring to Section 64(2) and the definition of 'specific goods' in Section 2(14) of our Sale of Goods Act, took the view that on the fall of the hammer the offer would get accepted and if the goods were specific goods the title would pass to the buyer. The distinction that was made by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal between goods which were sold in "full lots" and those which were sold "in portions" and its view that in regard to the former title had passed as soon as the hammer fall and not in regard to the latter was referred to by this Court with approval. At page 612 this Court observed thus: "In the present case as soon as the hammer fell the title in the goods passed to the buyer as the goods were specific goods i.e. goods which were auctioned in full lots and this event took place at Fort Cochin which was in the State of Madras. But in the case of unasce....