TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (12) TMI 834
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t to the extent of Rs.90,39,554/-. As a result, the appellant became liable to pay additional Central Sales Tax [CST] of Rs. 1,44,069/- for Assessment Year [AY] 1996-1997. 3. The facts which led to the issue of this order are that the appellant is a proprietary concern manufacturing talcum powder under the brand name "Z". It had its head office and manufacturing unit in Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu and a branch office at Palakkad in Kerala. It was registered with the Sales Tax Authorities of both States. The appellant was in business only for three assessment years viz., AY - 1994-1995, 1995-1996 and 1996-1997. 4. The appellant had entered into an agreement dated 28.06.1994 with M/s Argus Cosmetics Pvt. Ltd.[ Argus], Chennai for sale of its cosmetic products. 5. The Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Enforcement Wing at Coimbatore inspected the appellant's premises and records for years 1994-1995 and 1995-1996 based on which the assessments were re-opened and revised by the Assessing Authority by separate orders dated 30.10.1998 and penalties were also imposed on the appellant. 6. By a separate original assessment order dated 30.10.1998 for AY 1996-1997 the Assessing Authority ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was inextricably linked with the sales. Therefore, relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. versus Union of India [47 STC 1], the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal held that the sales for this period by the appellant in Kerala through its branch in Palakkad were interstate sales and these are valued at Rs. 90,39,554/- but upheld the assessment for the remaining turnover of Rs. 66,07,846/- during AY 1996-1997. Submissions on behalf of the appellant 12. Learned counsel for the appellant made the following submissions :- (i) It is seen from the Tamil Nadu CST Assessment orders for AY 1994-1995, AY 1995-1996 and AY 1996-1997 that the appellant's claim of branch transfer/exemption from CST has been allowed fully for AY 1994-1995 and AY 19951996, and partially for AY 1996-1997 for the period after the date of inspection (i.e. from 29.08.1996 to 31.03.1997) as per impugned order. (ii) Thus, in all the three AYs put together, the appellant's claim of branch transfer/exemption from CST has been disallowed by TNSTAT only for about five months, i.e. from 01.04.1996 to 28.08.1996, in AY 1996-1997 purportedly based on D-7 records, which is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... or for that matter, the direct result of the dispatch instructions of Argus Cosmetics which formed part of D-7 records. (vii) For AY 1996-1997 the appellant had claimed CST exemption on a turnover of Rs. 1,65,66,786/- against 34 'F' Forms. However, neither the Assessing Authority, nor TNSTAT in the impugned order, have referred to 'F' Forms submitted by the appellant, which formed part of the records. The appellant has filed all the 34 'F' Forms before this Hon'ble Authority. (34 'F' Forms submitted by the appellant for AY 19961997 @ pages 1-34 of additional documents filed by the appellant as a separate paper book on 03.12.2015). The submission of 'F' Forms established the bona fides on the part of the appellant and hence the appellant's claim for exemption should have been allowed in full by TNSTAT based on the 'F' Forms. (viii) The inferences drawn by TNSTAT and the conclusions based on such inferences are not reasonable, as they are based on surmises and conjectures". 12.1 Learned counsel for the appellant prayed that the impugned order may be modified and the assessment for the year 1996-1997 to the extent it is upheld by the impugne....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nced by the learned counsels for the appellant, for the State of Tamil Nadu and for the State of Kerala. 18. The short question to be answered is whether the interstate transfer of goods by the appellant from its factory in Coimbatore to its depot in Palakkad in Kerala during from 01.04.1996 to 28.08.1996 were inter-state sales or branch transfers. It is undisputed that the goods were transferred from Coimbatore to appellant's own depot in Palakkad. 19. As per section 6A of the CST Act, where any dealer claims that he is not liable to pay Central Sales Tax in respect of any goods on the ground that the movement of such goods from one State to another was NOT occasioned by sales, the burden of proof rests on the dealer. In other words, if the dealer claims that the goods have been transferred to its own depot or branch in another State and, therefore, no Central Sales Tax was payable, the burden of proving so rests on the dealer. If he fails to do so, the dealer has to pay the Central Sales Tax. The presumption in case of goods transferred from one State to another is that it is occasioned by sales of goods, but this presumption can be rebutted. 20. The appellan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r Sir, Kindly find enclosed our Invoice No. Br 001 of 2.4.96 covering dispatch of 200 cartons of 200 gms. Of 'Z' Talcum Powder to your Ernakulam Office along with L.R. No. of 2.4.96 of Commercial Goods Transport (P) Limited. Thanking you, Yours faithfully, For ANSA COSMOCHEMS P.K. RAMESH AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY" 8. As such the following Palakkad branch invoices were sent to Tvl. Argus Cosmetics Limited, Chennai by the dealerappellants from Head Office, Coimbatore through the following slips : Slip No. Branch Invoice No./Date Quantity 1 Br. 001/02.04.96 200 Cartons of 200 gms. 2 Br. 003/10.04.96 Br. 004/11.04.96 210 Cartons of 100 gms. 6 Cartons of 200 gms. 12 Br. 007/02.05.96 200 Cartons of 100 gms. & 200 Cartons of 200 gms. 15 Br. 008/07.05.96 200 Cartons of 100 gms. 23 Br. 011/20.05.96 Br. 012.20.05.96 Br. 013/20.05.96 150 Cartons of 200 gms. Each 25 Br. 016/01.06.96 250 Cartons of 100 gms. 29 Br. 009/18.05.96 Br. 010/18.05.96 250 Cartons of 200 gms. 150 Cartons of 100 gms. 39 Br. 025/27.07.96 Br. 026/28.07.96 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....receipt of the above payment and arrange to send us your official stamped receipt at the earliest. Yours Sincerely, For Argus Cosmetics Ltd., Sreelakshmi S. Executive - Sourcing 11. In the same manner, the dealer-appellants had received the consideration from Tvl. Argus Cosmetics Limited, Chennai for goods said to be sold from Palakkad Branch as below : Slip No. Branch Invoice No./Date Value Received Rs. Invoice Value Rs. 13 Br. 003/10.04.96 2,98,429.20 3,68,323.20 14 Br. 005/21.04.96 3,70,927.87 3,70,927.87 17 Br. 006/22.04.96 Br. 006/26.04.96 7,28,018.96 (For both invoices) 4,19,186.88 34 Br. 019/21.06.96 2,72,814.20 --- 12. On examination of the above records clearly proved that based on the requirement of Tvl. Argus Cosmetics Limited, Chennai to its Ernakulam Branch at Kerala, orders have been placed well in advance in the form of dispatch instructions. Even the date on which goods to be dispatched, priority and quantity to be supplied to Ernakulam Branch of Tvl. Argus Cosmetics Limited, Chennai known to dealer-appellants' Head Off....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts recorded. This record had been recovered from the Head Office of the dealer-appellants at Coimbatore. This contains all details like branch invoice no. and date, no. of cartons, value of bill, L.R. No. and Amount received with DD/Cheque/TT details as detailed below: S. No. In. No. Date No. of 100 gms. Cartons 200 gms. Erna- Kulam desti- nation Amount (Rs.) Pay- ment (Rs.) L.R. No. Amount Recei- ved DD Details Balance 1. Br 001/ 03.04. 96 --- 205 C/s -do- 2,53,306.20 30 Days 523980 2,41,488. 00 016787/ 18.4.96 11,818.00 2. Br 002/ 06.04. 96 --- 200 C/s -do- 2,47,128.00 30 Days 523924 2,36,004. 00 016787/ 17.4.96 11,124.00 3. Br 003/ 10.04. 96 210 C/s --- -do- 3,68,323.20 30 Days 523982 2,98,429. 20 409799/ 30.4.96 69,894. 00 4. Br 004/ 11.04. 96 --- 6 C/s -do- 7,413.84 30 Days 523983 --- --- --- 5. Br 005/ 21.04. 96 211 C/s --- -do- 3,70,927.87 30 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....07. 96 --- 200 C/s -do- 2,44,272.00 13.7. 96 524128 4,07,340. 00 --- 20,136.00 23. Br 023/ 18.07. 96 200 C/s --- -do- 3,59,654.40 24.7. 96 524227 3,42,095. 00 019547/ 23.7.96 17,559.40 24. Br 024/ 18.07. 96 200 C/s --- -do- 3,59,654.40 31.7. 96 524226 3,50,000. 00 000325/ 30.7.96 9,654.00 25. Br 025/ 29.07. 96 200 C/s --- -do- 3,45,139.20 --- 524138 --- --- --- 26. Br 026/ 28.07. 96 --- 250 C/s -do- 3,05,340.00 --- 524139 --- --- --- 27. Br 027/ 28.07. 96 200 C/s --- -do- 3,45,139.20 --- 524140 --- --- --- 28. Br 028/ 29.07. 96 200 C/s --- -do- 3,45,139.20 08.8. 96 524141 3,27,480. 20 020369/ 07.8.96 17,659.00 29. Br 029/ 30.07. 96 200 C/s --- -do- 3,45,139.20 --- --- --- --- --- 30. Br 030/ 31.07. 96 --- 200 C/s -do- 2,44,272.00 27.8. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that sales occasioned the inter-state movement of goods under the disputed Forms F during the period 01.04.1996 to 28.08.1996. In respect of the transfers made during the rest of the AY, the order of assessment has already been set aside in the impugned order. 24. We, therefore, find the impugned order is correct and proper and needs to be upheld and we do so. 25. The alternative prayer of the appellant is that if the demand of CST is upheld, an order may be issued under section 22 (1B) of the CST Act directing the State of Kerala to transfer the refundable amount which the appellant had paid as sales tax on the disputed transactions to the State of Tamil Nadu. This section reads as follows: Section 22 ****** (1B) The Authority may issue direction for refund of tax collected by a State which has been held by the 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 transaction: Provided that the amount of tax directed to be refunded by a State shall not exceed the amount of central sales tax payable by the appellant on the same ....