TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (12) TMI 596
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....edpur Division in Appeal Case No. JU/CST-A-06/2014-15, communicated to the petitioner vide Memo No. 182 dated 19.03.2015 wherein appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed to the extent it relates to the issue of 'Transit Sale'; (iii) To quash/set aside the Assessment Order dated 15.03.2014 passed by Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes Urban Circle, Jamshedpur (Respondent No.4) wherein Assessing Officer, while passing the assessment order pertaining to Financial Year 2010-11 had proceeded to levy tax under the provisions of Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, to the extent tax it had levied in respect of transaction pertaining to 'Transit Sale'. 3. The brief facts of the case as enunciated by the pleadings is that the petitioner company is primarily engaged in providing basic utility services to the citizens of Jamshedpur and it surrounding places as a Contractor of M/s. Tata Steel Limited. The primary service provided by the Petitioner are distribution of electricity, supply of water, maintenance of sanitary and water system, maintenance of parks and garden, maintenance of geological park, educational institution and to provide basic civic amenities and maintenance of ci....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeal), Jamshedpur Division, Jamshedpur, which was registered as Appeal Case No. JU/CST-A-06/2014-15, however the same was rejected. 5. During the revisional proceeding before the Tribunal, by way of example, statement of transit sales made during the period in dispute and sample copies of tax invoices raised by Petitioner to Tata Steel Limited for the period in dispute, were submitted by the Petitioner to demonstrate that Petitioner had effected sales by transfer of documents of title of the goods during their movement from one State to another, which is an exempted transaction under Section 6(2) of the CST Act. He further submits that before the Tribunal, Assessee also contended that under normal business transactions, bills are not raised immediately after the delivery of goods and as the normal business practice, bills are also generally raised after time gap of one to six months. He contended that Petitioner has raised bills on lot wise delivery of goods and in majority of goods, bills have been raised with gap of 45-60/ days from the date of delivery to M/s. Tata Steel Limited. He further submits that the petitioner also specifically co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... respect of transaction under section 6 (2) CST. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon P.A.George Case (Para-13) on perusal of which we find that Hon'ble Apex Court was pleased to hold that if certificate in Form E-I, E-II or Form 'C' have been furnished then there is no further requirement as per section 12 for sustaining the claim of exemption. The Tax authorities nowhere have disputed about submission of these Forms or certificates rather have doubted their genuineness only on the ground that bills were raised after 4 to 6 months after delivery of goods. We are of the view that there is no rationale or any logic in giving such a finding without otherwise questioning the authenticity of the Forms or certificates. However, something more is required to be established by the petitioner. 36. In A &G Project the Hon'ble apex Court in para-11 has been pleased to hold that the dividing line between sales and purchases u/s 3 (a) and those falling u/s 3(b) is that in the former case the movement is under the contract where as in the later the contract comes into existence only after the commencement and before termination of inter-state movement of the goods. 37. As per ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rpretation and mis-reading of the judgment delivered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of A & G Projects & Technologies Ltd. Vs. State of Karnataka reported in (2009) 2 SCC 326 especially paragraph no.13 thereof. For ready reference relevant part of paragraph no.13 reads as under: "Para13....................................................... ........................................................ The dividing line between sales and the purchase under Section 3(a) and thus falling under Section 3(b) is that in the former case the movement is under the contract whereas in the latter case the contract comes into existence only after the commencement and before the termination of the inter-state movement of the goods........................ ...................................................................................................... ............................................................................................................." (emphasis supplied) (xxvii) Looking to the counter affidavit, it appears that the aforesaid paragraph of the judgment delivered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court has been wrongly appreciated by the respondent-State that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f argument, it is presumed that movement of the goods has taken place under a pre-existing contract and as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court the said transaction cannot be treated to be a transaction of 'Transit Sale' falling under section 3(b) of the C.S.T. Act, then also no liability of tax can be fastened upon the petitioner in respect of the aforesaid transaction by the State of Jharkhand as admittedly, petitioner had purchased the goods in question from various State situated outside the State of Jharkhand and had duly discharged its liability of payment of central sales tax to the respective State Government. If the aforesaid transaction of 'Transit Sale' is deemed to have been rejected, then the transaction would fall under the purview of Section 3(a) of the C.S.T. Act and since, admittedly, the entire tax in respect of the aforesaid sale falling under Section 3 (a) of the C.S.T. Act has been discharged by the petitioner to the respective State Governments, no further tax liability can be imposed by the State of Jharkhand upon the petitioner. 10. At the cost of repetition, there is misinterpretation and misreading of the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Apex Co....