2015 (12) TMI 1632

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....follows:- a. The Petitioner is a partnership firm, having their Head Office at Cochin and a registered dealer in chemicals both under the State Act and the Central Act. The buyers in Kerala and Tamil Nadu, who are the manufacturers, are registered under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 as well as the State Acts. On receipt of the order dated 01.03.2004 from Adarsh Chemical Industries, Secunderabad, for Toluene to be despatched on 02.03.2004 and on instructions, M/s.Cochin Refineries Limited, despatched the products to Hyderabad through L/R No.1340, dated 02.03.2004 of Gautham Transport on freight-to-pay basis under invoice No.900704448 dated 02.03.2004, showing the name of the consignee as Adarsh Chemicals. The documents were sent with th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... dated 20.06.2003 for a sum of Rs. 2,50,311/-. The margin for the Petitioner, taking into account the discount, was 1.92%. The buyers issued 'C' Form No.074027 dated 09.07.2004. b. The Petitioner reported their total and taxable turnover in their monthly Form I returns under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 for the assessment years 2003-2004 and 2002-2003 and claimed exemption as transit sales and also filed necessary C Forms and E1 Forms. On scrutiny of the records, the Respondents sent a notice dated 5.11.2004, proposing to levy tax and penalty, to which the Petitioner filed their objections dated 10.11.2004, 19.11.2004 and 15.12.2004. However, by the impugned assessment orders, the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....o be dismissed. 4. The learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner contended that neither the 1st Respondent nor the authority of the State of Tamil Nadu has any territorial jurisdiction to impose Central Sales Tax in respect of goods transmitted on sale from the State of Kerala for delivery to buyers in the States of Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Pondicherry and Tamil nadu, because under Section 9(1) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, it is only in the movement State (Kerala) that can tax an interstate sale. When the Petitioner had not handled the goods and not even handled a document or transferred the same, there is no jurisdiction to impose tax under the Central Sales Tax Act in the State of Tamil Nadu. The 1st Respondent failed consider....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on of the Form-C declarations and if the said forms had been considered in a proper and perspective manner, the rate of tax could have been only at 4% for inter-State sales and that without considering the documents produced by them, the impugned order has been passed. 8. On the other hand, it is the contention of the Respondents that after proper inspection and considering the documents available, the impugned order has been passed. However, the learned Additional Government Pleader for the Respondents fairly submitted that the Petitioner can be afforded one more opportunity to submit the documentary evidence to substantiate their case and on such evidence being filed, the same would be considered and appropriate orders would be passed.....