TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (9) TMI 304
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 13 and 594 of 1998-99 and STA No. 370 of 1999-2000 and dismissed the same by a short order dated 12.05.2000 upholding the orders passed by the Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner. 3. So far as CWP No. 16829 of 2004 is concerned, prayer made therein is for formation of Central Sales Tax Appellate Authority apart from challenging the assessment order dated 29.09.2004 and requesting for refund of the amount deposited as per assessment order dated 20.02.2004. 4. We find that the Central Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal has already been formed. 5. Since all these writ petitions were tagged and are pending since long, we propose to decide the legal issues raised therein without remanding the same on the ground of alternative remedy. 6. Brief facts which need to be noticed are being examined on the first original order passed by the Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeal), Faridabad dated 27.02.1998 and is made the basis to decide the appeal by the Sales Tax Tribunal, Haryana. The petitioner-M/s Modern Food Industries (India) Limited (hereinafter to be referred as 'MFIL') is a public sector undertaking of the Government of India engaged in the business of manufacturing and sa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mited vs Commercial Tax Officer (1985) 60 STC 301 (SC) and held that where the goods move from one State to other as a result of covenant in the contract of sale, or an incident of the contract, the same shall be treated as inter-State sales and was, thus, liable to tax under the Central Sales Tax Act. The appellate authority, namely, the Sales Tax Tribunal has upheld the order. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners paid sales tax at the level of the State of Bihar itself and, therefore, it cannot be said inter-State sales as the sale has to be treated at the level of the concerned State alone. Once the petitioners have already paid sales tax @ 4.43% to the Bihar Government, they cannot be taxed twice and no ulterior motive could have been attributed to them as sales tax in Haryana is only 4%. 10. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has already paid sales tax to the Bihar Government, which issued Form 'F' for stock transfer of goods from Faridabad and payment of sales tax to them but the attempt of the State of Haryana is to treat the said movement of goods as interstate s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sale of these goods. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that once the petitioner has already been assessed by the State of Uttar Pardesh and State of Bihar, State of Haryana cannot claim the sales tax. In the alternative, he submitted that the petitioner has to pay the amount to meet out the demand raised by the State of Haryana. The petitioner ought to be allowed to refund the local sales tax to the sales tax authorities of the States of U. P. and Bihar. The issue raised by the petitioner is no more res integra in view of judgment of the Supreme Court in Tata Motors Limited vs Central Sales Tax Appellate Authority and others 2022 (9) TMI 1000, which is as under:- "4. At this stage, it is required to be noted that prior to insertion of Section 22(1B) to the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act 1956'), there was no provision by which the Appellate Authority could have issued directions for refund of the tax collected by the State which has been held by the Appellate Authority to be not due to that State, or alternatively, direct that State to transfer the refundable amount to the State to which central sales tax is due on the same....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... case, the petitioner entered into an agreement with the Bihar Government to supply energy food. However, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner firm manufactures energy food at Faridabad factory and also at branches in a case of necessity, transfers energy Food at places of its requirement, if the same is not met by the local branch. The petitioner firm has transferred energy Food of specific formulation of its branches at Patna, Madras and Kanpur in pursuance of a prior contract and orders for supply from branch were already contracted and orders for supply from branch were already in hand and goods were supplied as per agreement. It has been held by the Supreme Court in M/s Bharat Electric Limited vs Union of India (1996) 8 PRT 424 (SC) that interstate sales Tax is leviable in the state where goods are manufactured for specific purpose and also from where movement of goods takes place. As movement of goods took place from Faridabad to Patna, Madras and Kanpur branches for specific purpose in pursuance of a prior contract and specific formulation hence it being an inter-State sales, inter-State sales tax is leviable at Faridabad. In view of the facts no....