TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (5) TMI 396
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the order of the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in STA.Nos.777, 779 & 782 of 2000 dated 11.03.2008. 2. The brief facts which are necessary for disposal of the instant writ petitions are as follows:- (a). The Assessee M/s.Techni Tools is a manufacturer of M.S.Rounds, M.S.Bars etc. During the material assessment years 1992-93, 1993-94 and 1994-95, they claimed exemption towards inter-State consignment transfers of the above materials under Section 6-A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. However, the Commercial Tax Officer vide Assessment Orders dated 29.11.1996 and 06.05.1996 respectively has disallowed the exemption and also imposed a penalty under Section 12(3)(b)(v) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. (b)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rn of transaction would reveal a pre-existing contract between the assessee and the buyer. The learned counsel for the assessee would further contend that having the Authority not disputing the existence of the agency and the transfer of consignments to the agents, ought not to have concluded that the pattern of transaction is inter-State sale. The learned counsel would further contend that the receipt of advance payment and the sale of material on the same day of arrival, cannot be a ground to deny the exemption under Section 6A of Central Sales Tax Act. In this connection, the learned counsel relied upon the following judgments:- 1. State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Kumaran Mills Limited and another reported in [2010] 28 VST 262 (Mad); ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 11708/2008 1992-93 3. 11709/2008 1994-95 8. Since the fact and law involves in all the above writ petitions are one and the same, we deem it appropriate to dispose of all the writ petitions jointly. 9. Some of the reasons to deny exemption under Section 6A of the CST Act is, the receipt of sale price by the assessee in advance, the agent did not sell the goods over and above it's cost, and the goods were delivered to the consignee directly from the dealer in the same vehicle. 10. Before we delve into the merits of the matter, it is appropriate to refer the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Deputy General Manager (Appellate Authority) Vs. Ajai Kumar Srivastava reported in (2021) 2 SCC 612, wherein the Hon....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of fact arrived at in the departmental enquiry proceedings except in a case of malafides or perversity, i.e., where there is no evidence to support a finding or where a finding is such that no man acting reasonably and with objectivity could have arrived at that findings and so long as there is some evidence to support the conclusion arrived at by the departmental authority, the same has to be sustained." With the above principle in mind, let us consider the merits of this case. 11. It is well settled principle of law that whenever any factual finding is rendered by the authorities, the Writ Court normally will not interfere, unless the same is perverse or contrary to law. Therefore, there is a duty cast upon this Court to find out w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... It is common knowledge that delivery of goods on the same vehicle would reduce transport expenditure of the agent. Now, let us see whether such a conduct of an agent by itself can be termed as a disguise pattern to avoid the tax on inter-State sale. The above factual finding is running counter to the Division Bench judgment of this Court in P.M.P.Iron and Steel's case [cited supra], wherein this Court held that mere sale transactions effected by the agent on the very day of arrival of goods by itself cannot be the sole basis to treat the sale as "inter-State sale". 14. It is pertinent to mention here that the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal has also doubted the transaction, on the ground of receipt of sale price in advance. In this re....