2021 (3) TMI 959

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... The relevant portion of the Show Cause Notice based on which the proposal has been made to revise the assessment reads as under:- "4. From the perusal of the above details and records furnished it is clear that Tvl.Balaji Distilleries Ltd., registered dealer in this office had sold two ships which were owned by them since August 1994 to other dealers in Mumbai. Though the agreements between the buyer and seller had taken place at Mumbai & Nellore, the commercial invoice for both the ships were raised by Balaji Distilleries, (Shipping Division) at Chennai only. The transaction such as chartered Hire receipts, ship operation expenses relating to the above ships were shown in the books of accounts of Chennai Balaji Distiller....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on the ground that the Show Cause Notice is contrary to Section 4(2) of the CST Act, 1956 and the definition of "sale" under Section 2(n) of the TNGST Act, 1959 read with explanation 3(a)(i) of the TNGST Act, 1959 as it stood during the material period. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Show Cause Notice appears to be based on an objection/note prepared by the Accountant General and based on the details furnished by the petitioner in response to the notice dated 01.04.2005 which spells out the date of the contract, actual date of the transactions and the position of the ships on the date of the agreement as Mumabi and Nellore for sale to ICICI Limited, Mumbai and Radiant Shipping Limited, Mumbai in respect of two....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....(2) of the CST Act, 1956 and in view to the definition of the "sale" in Explanation 3(a)(i) Section 2(n) of the TNGST Act, 1959. 7. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that in this case the commercial invoices were raised at Chennai and was duly declared in the Books of Accounts of the 1st petitioner Chennai in company and as per the agreement between the petitioner and the buyers namely ICICI Limited, Mumbai, Radiant Shipping Limited, Mumbai. He submits the sale took place in Chennai though delivery may have been made outside Chennai. He refers to following passage from the Counter, which reads as under:- "The vessels shall be delivered and taken over safely afloat at a safe berth or at a safe Anchorage or in the buy....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... revision notice is beyond the scope of limitation under Article 286(2) of the Constitution of India read with Section 4(2) of the CST Act, 1956 and the definition of "sale" in Section 2(n) read with explanation 3(a) (i) of the TNGST Act, 1959. The impugned revision notice therefore has to go. However, this would without prejudice to the rights of the respondent to articulate a fresh notice to the 2nd petitioner who has taken over the 1st petitioner in accordance with the provisions of the TNGST Act, 1959 after factoring Section 4(2) CST Act, 1956 and Article 286(2) of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the respondent may either issue a fresh notice or a corrigendum to the impugned notice to the 2nd petitioner. 12. Therefore, without ....