TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 1600
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tary to Government Department of Finance, State of Madhya Pradesh Represented by its Secretary to Government Department of Finance, State of Chhattisgarh, Represented by its Secretary to Government Department of Finance, State of Uttar Pradesh, Represented by its Secretary to Government Department of Finance, State of Uttaranchal Represented by its Secretary to Government Department of Finance, State of West Bengal, Represented by its Secretary to Government Department of Finance, State of Haryana, Represented by its Secretary to Government Department of Finance, State of Gujarat Represented by its Secretary to Government Department of Finance, State of Bihar Represented by its Secretary to Government Department of Finance, State of Jharkhand Represented by its Secretary to Government Department of Finance, State of Arunachal Pradesh Represented by its Secretary to Government Department of Finance, Pondichery Represented by its Secretary to Government Department of Finance, State of Delhi, Represented by its Secretary to Government Department of Finance, State of Assam, Represented by its Secretary to Government Department of Finance, State of Manipur, Represented by its Secretary ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es Tax were assailed before the Sales Tax Tribunal against which the appellant filed four appeals before the Central Sales Tax Appellate Authority and by a common order dated 15.03.2010, the four appeals were allowed and the matters were remanded to the Sales Tax Tribunal for fresh disposal in the light of the observations made in the order. It is pursuant to the aforesaid order of remand that the Sales Tax Tribunal passed the order dated 29.06.2018 that has been assailed before this Tribunal in the four appeals that have been filed by the appellant. 4. The Steel Authority of India Ltd.[the appellant] has six integrated Steel Plants. They are: (a) Rourkela Steel Plant, Odisha; (b) Bokaro Steel Plant, Jharkhand; (c) Bhilai Steel Plant, Chhattisgarh; (d) Durgapur Steel Plant, West Bengal; (e) Alloy Steel Plant, West Bengal; and (f) Salem Steel Plant, Tamil Nadu 5. The appellant has 37 branches/stockyards all over the country. The appellant claims that it follows identical system of production, movement and marketing at all its Steel Plants and branches. 6. The four appeals relate to the Rourkela Steel Plant at Odisha. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ansfers are independent of and totally unrelated to any sales that could ultimately be made at the branches. The branch transfers are never occasioned by any pre-existing contract with any buyer but are general and bulk stock transfers of standard goods from the plants to the branches in a regular routine manner; (vii) All the documents relating to production at the plants and movement from the plants to the branches are relatable to general planning of the appellant manufacturing activities at the plants and movement of manufactured goods to different branches throughout the country. None of these activities and none of these documents in any way relate to any buyer at the branch. Freight for transportation to branches as well as applicable octroi is paid by the appellant. Branch transfers are supported by declarations in Form F; 8. The following facts have been stated by the appellant relating to the sales at branches and branch documents: (i) The branches are maintained by the appellant as a part of its normal business activity and for better and efficient distribution of goods throughout the country. All branches are manned by personnel of the appellant; ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....m Rourkela Steel Plant to the branches of the appellant during the above four years. The Sales Tax Tribunal has treated the entire branch transfers from the Rourkela Steel Plant to the own branches of the appellant as inter-State sales by referring to and relying on Time Bound Supply [TBS] Scheme. 9. In connection with the aforesaid TBS, the appellant has stated the following facts: (i) Full facts relating to TBS have been stated in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the order 15.03.2010 of the Central Sales Tax Appellate Authority. In the said order it was held inter alia that TBS Scheme is only a methodology and it is not an offer or contract of sale. This view was also upheld by the High Court in the judgment dated 18.01.2023; (ii) The branches of the appellant throughout the country have been selling iron and steel products inter alia under TBS Scheme. Save and except the Odisha Sales Tax authorities for the disputed years, no dispute with reference to TBS sales was raised by Sales Tax authorities having jurisdiction over other plants or branches of the appellant and the branch transfers were always accepted as branch transfers. The Odisha Sales Tax authorities however,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s, the customers are required to pay full price of the goods without any adjustment of earnest money; (d) Final Offer: Final offer to the buyers at the branches is made after the goods have been received at the branch from the plant and/or are in transit. Transfers from the plants to the branches are in full rake/wagon loads. In the final offers, full details are given about the quantity offered finally and its quality, sizes and thickness. These are at variance with those in the pre-offer. The buyer concerned is required to remit 100% of the price at the time of delivery within the stipulated period, which is normally 7 to 10 days. In the final offer, the buyer is also informed that it may inspect the materials covered by the said offer prior to making the payment. The branch is at liberty to supply the goods already lying in stock at the branch or to make the supplies from out of the incoming goods in transit and the offer is also subject to prior sales, if any. In the final offer, wagon number in which the goods are received at the branch is also mentioned. This is necessary to maintain proper accounting and co-relation of the goods in the wagon. All these details are a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eel Plant for some years, either at Rourkela Steel Plant or at any other plant of the appellant, proceedings were not initiated by the department alleging that the transfers were inter-State sales liable to central sales tax. 12. The dispute in the present four appeals relates to assessment years 1989-1990; 1991-1992; 1992-1993 and 1993-1994. 13. The factual position at the Rourkela Steel Plant with respect to the same dispute for other years is as follows: (1) Assessment Years 1986-87 and 1987-88: Date Particulars 26.07.1993 Odisha Sales Tax Tribunal made a reference to the High Court under section 24 Odisha Sales Tax Act on the following questions of law: "1. Whether in the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the reopening of the assessment u/r 17(8) of the C.S.T. (O) Sales, 1967 for the years 1986-87 and 1987-88 is contrary to the law and without jurisdiction? 2. Whether in the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was not justified to hold that the transactions of dispatch of goods from Rourkela Steel Plant to different Branches outside the State of Odissa according to demand registration scheme and time bound supply scheme ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt. The impugned order of the Tribunal and the corresponding orders of the First Appellate Authority and the AO are hereby set aside. In other words, it is held that for the year 1988-89 the transactions in question were branch transfers not amounting to interstate sales. It is clarified that this finding of the Court for the year 1988-89 will not preclude the Department from demonstrating for any of the subsequent years that the transactions forming subject matter of the assessment proceedings in any of those years do not amount to branch transfers but were in fact inter-state sales." (Emphasis supplied) 18.01.2023 For the years 1986-87 and 1987-88 also, relief was granted by the Orissa High Court by holding that in the original assessment orders, the assessing officer had accepted the case of the assessee that the branch transfers were not inter-State sales and that during the relevant time, the assessing officer had no power of reassessment. (3) Assessment Years 1990-91, 1994-95, 1995-96, 1996-97 and 1997-98 04.04.2024 Odisha Sales Tax Tribunal passed an order allowing identical appeals filed by the appellant for the above five assessment years holding that the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lation to the assessment year 1988-89 have observed that a general statement of the objective does not control the operative causes of the scheme and the actual modalities of the transactions. This apart, the Hon'ble Court in TREV No.147 of 2001(supra) were of the view that nearly 35 years have elapsed since the year 1988-89 and these proceedings cannot interminably carry on. Similar is the fate with these cases under appeal. They are as old as more that 30 years having identical issue parimeteria to the year 1988-89. We are, therefore, not inclined to remit the impugned cases back to the Assessing Authority for further verification, as there shall no fruitful purpose served on remand of the cases. Accordingly, these appeals are decided in favour of the dealer-company." (Emphasis supplied) (4) Assessment Year 1998-99 to 2006-07 (1st quarter) 11.12.2024 Proceedings were initiated and Odisha Sales Tax Tribunal has passed an order dated 11.12.2024 against which appeals have been filed by the appellant. (5) Assessment Year 2006-07 (2nd quarter) till 30.06.2017 During this entire period, no proceedings were initiated by the department raising the aforesaid di....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ade by other plants of the appellant by following identical system and under identical documents. At all other plants, it has always been the accepted position by the department for the last more than five decades that the transfers were mere branch transfers and not inter-State sales. Even in respect of the Rourkela steel plant, this position was accepted for more than two decades prior to the relevant period; (iii) The issue involved in these appeals is covered in favour of the appellant by the judgment dated 18.01.2023 of the Orissa High Court in respect of the assessment years 1986-87, 1987-1988 and 1988-1989; (iv) The issues involved in these appeals is also covered in favour of the appellant by the definite findings recorded in the order dated 15.03.2010 passed by the Central Sales Tax Appellate Authority in respect of TBS Scheme and identical documents. The case of Mechanical Wire Industries was extensively examined in the said order and it was held that it was a case of branch transfer and not inter-State sale. This order of the Central Sales Tax Appellate Authority has been accepted by the department. The other seven cases examined by the Sales Tax Tribun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....period, quantity of the said goods which moved from Rourkela Steel Plant to branches was running into a few thousand MT. All these movements from the plant were in bulk in full rake/wagon loads. All the documents of the plant were in the names of the branches. In none of the documents of the plant, there was any reference to any of the said eight parties or any registration or pre-offer/offer of the said parties; (ix) The findings by the Sales Tax Tribunal are contrary to the binding judgments of the Central Sales Tax Appellate Authority and the High Court above; (x) Other documents mentioned in the impugned order such as wagon card register and work order were internal documents of the branch and had nothing to do with the plants or any inter-State sales or any movement from the plant pursuant to any sale at the branch; (xi) In support of this submissions reliance has been placed on the following judgments: (a) M/s. Kelvinator of India Ltd. vs. The State of Haryana [(1973) 2 SCC 551]; (b) Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd vs. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and Another [(1970) 1 SCC 622]; (c) The State of Bihar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....te set of wagon card register of branch sales office, how rah reflecting the receipt of goods as per packet no. mentioned in the stock yard advice & issue of goods to specified customers on the strength of challans; and (d) TBSS register showing chain of events from registration of demand to delivery of goods; (v) It is a settled principle of law that an adverse inference can be drawn where a document exists, which is in the control of the opposing party and is not produced by that party, without a reasonable explanation. There is a higher standard of proof applied when the entire evidence of the transactions are within the exclusive knowledge of the dealer; (vi) In a genuine stock transfer, goods are moved to replenish branch stock without prior knowledge of the ultimate customer. However, the appellant documentation - including wagon numbers, dispatch plans, packet numbers and consignment advices - establishes that the goods were earmarked for specific customers even before dispatch, confirming the existence of an inextricable link towards inter-State sale. The binding nature of the work order is further underscored by the existence of legal remedies, i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... being at liberty to file only some typical transactions, chose not to file some crucial documents in each of the transactions brought on record. Therefore, an adverse inference can be drawn against the appellant; and (xiii) It is evident that the transactions in question are inter-State sales and not branch transfers. 19. Ms. Rama Ahluwalia appeared for the State of Maharashtra; Shri Ankit Roy assisted by Ms. Divyangi Gupta appeared for the State of Assam; Ms. Devina Sehgal assisted by Shri Dhananjay Yadav appeared for the State of Telangana; Ms. Madhumita Bhattacharjee assisted by Ms. Yoowanka Rymbai and Shri Anant appeared for the State of West Bengal; Shri Siddharth Sangal assisted by Ms. Shreya Garg, Ms. Richa Mishra and Ms. Mushkan Mangla appeared for the State of Uttarakhand; Shri C. Kranthi Kumar assisted by Ms. Misha Rohtagi appeared for the State of Tamil Nadu; Ms. Riya Sagar and Ms. Fliza Bar appeared for the State of Arunachal Pradesh; and Shri Prem Sagar Pal assisted by Shri Chandra Mani Dev appeared for the State of Punjab. 20. Learned counsel representing these States have supported the submissions advanced by learned senior counsel for the appellant a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....out of the territory of India. Provided that xxxxxxxxxx" 26. Section 6A deals with burden of proof in case of transfer of goods claimed otherwise than by way of sale. The relevant portion of this section, as stood prior to 11.05.2002, is reproduced below: "6A. Burden of proof, etc., in case of transfer of goods claimed otherwise than by way of sale.- (1) Where any dealer claims that he is not liable to pay tax under this Act, in respect of any goods, on the ground that the movement of such goods from one State to another was occasioned by reason of transfer of such goods by him to any other place of his business or to his agent or principal, as the case may be, and not by reason of sale, the burden of proving that the movement of those goods was so occasioned shall be on that dealer and for this purpose he may furnish to the assessing authority, within the prescribed time or within such further time as that authority may, for sufficient cause, permit, a declaration, duly filled and signed by the principal officer of the other place of business, or his agent or principal, as the case may be, containing the prescribed particulars in the prescribed form obtained f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sale. Sub-section (1) of section 6A of the CST Act, as it stood prior to 11.05.2002, provided that where any dealer claims that he is not liable to tax under the CST Act on the ground that the movement of goods from one State to another was occasioned by reason of transfer of such goods by him to any other place of his business or to his agent or principal, the burden of proving that the movement was so occasioned shall be on the dealer and for this purpose he may furnish to the Assessing Authority a declaration in Form F containing the prescribed particulars along with evidence of despatch of such goods. Thus, such burden could be discharged either by production of a declaration in Form F and evidence of dispatch of goods or by adducing evidence without the production of declaration in Form F. Sub-section (2) of section 6A of the CST Act, as it existed prior to 08.05.2010, provided that if the Assessing Authority was satisfied after making such enquiry as he deemed necessary to ascertain the veracity to the particulars furnished in Form F make an order to that effect and thereupon, the movement of goods shall be deemed to have been occasioned otherwise then as a result of sale. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the supplies will be made from the stockyards and that the goods supplied may be from materials produced in any of the steel plants of the appellant without reference to the applicant; the goods covered by preliminary offers are normally in much smaller quantities and of different sizes, qualities or thickness as compared to those mentioned in the registration application; the pre-offer requires the party to communicate its acceptance within a particular period and it is clearly stated that if the acceptance is not made before the stipulated date, pre-offer will stand withdrawn without any further reference; and that pre-offer is merely in the nature of a tentative information about a much lesser quantity and that too of different sizes and qualities and it is never acted upon. 32. It is also seen from the factual position narrated above, that the dispute in the present appeals relates to assessment years 1989-1990, 1991-1992, 1992-1993 and 1993-1994. For the assessment years 1986-1987 and 1987-1988, the Odisha Sales Tax Tribunal made a reference to the High Court on the question of law namely whether the transfer was inter-State sales in the light of the Demand Registration S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e by the learned counsel for the appellant before the Central Sales Tax Appellate Authority have been recorded in paragraph 6.2 of the order dated 15.03.2010 passed by the Central Sales Tax Appellate Authority, which paragraph is reproduced below: "6.2 The appellant has assailed the findings of the Tribunal on the ground that there is no factual basis for the conclusions reached by the Tribunal. It is submitted that the appellant has discharged the burden of proof cast on it under section 6A by filing the F-forms and the material referred to by the assessing officer or Tribunal does not in any way disprove the factum of stock transfers. There is no contract of sale which preceded inter-state movement of goods from Rourkela to the branches in other States. The contract has come into existence only after the goods of standard nature were put on rail by the plant or after the goods reached the destination. Neither the registration of demands under the TBS Scheme and the intimation of availability of lesser quantity of goods than registered can be construed as offers which were accepted by the appellant. There is no basis for the finding of the Tribunal that the agreement to s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....insufficient or the photocopies were illegible, the Tribunal was not powerless to direct specific documents or details to be filed in so far as they were required for the purpose of proper appreciation of the issues. This process should have been gone through by the assessing and appellate authority especially for the reason that the filing of F-forms under section 6A, prime facie, amounts to discharge of the burden of proving that the inter-state movement was otherwise than by way of sale." (emphasis supplied) 36. The Central Sales Tax Appellate Authority also examined the findings recorded by the Sales Tax Tribunal and held in paragraph 7 of the order that it saw no reason to accept them. The said paragraph is reproduced below: "7. Coming to the bald findings of the Tribunal (extracted supra), we find no reasons in reaching those findings. The Tribunal evidently presumed that the so-called offer letter issued soon after the registration of the demand led to the acceptance of the said offer and to the formation of contract of sale. There is no basis for this assumption, going by what little material the Tribunal had before it. As we shall point out while analyzing t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... January-March 1992 was forwarded by Mechanical Wire Industries (MWI), Calcutta to the Branch Manager, SAIL, Howrah on 21.11.1991. Then the BSO of SAIL sent a communication styled as 'offer letter' on 21.11.1991 offering only 38th of GC sheets of .4 and .63 MM size out of 918 M/Ts of GP, GC and CR Sheets indented for by MWI. In the said offer letter the party (MWI) was required to make earnest money deposit and other financial arrangements as stated in the letter. However, the appellant stated in its affidavit dated 31.11.2009 and also in the course of hearing that the EMD was exempted and as the material was to be lifted against full payment, the furnishing of bank guarantee/letter of credit was not being insisted upon. In fact there is an endorsement in the offer letter "EMD exempted". There is nothing to show that the customer (MWI) communicated its acceptance of the offer specifically. Be that as it may, the other documents filed by the appellant would show that the offer letter for 7.2 M/Ts of .63 size GC sheets was made to the party (MWI) on 12.2.1992. He was asked to pay 100% price i.e. Rs. 1,40,000/- in order to enable the branch to issue a delivery order. Pursuant to this ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of which has been filed). The wagon arrived on 4.12.1991, as seen from the wagon card and it is the stock received in that wagon that was delivered to the customer (MWUV Thus by the date of issuance of the initial offer letter on 2.12.1991 the goods were already dispatched from Rourkela and therefore it is impossible to link the movement to the initial offer letter and then infer that the contract of safe preceded the movement-of goods from Rourkela: Thus, the documents throwing light on the transaction with Mechanical Wire Industries clearly negates the case of the assessing authority that there was an inextricable link between the contract of sale and the movement of goods pursuant thereto. These facts were explained in a Note filed before the 1st Appellate authority, a copy of which has also been filed before the Tribunal (as seen from the original record of Tribunal) Evidently these were not considered by the Tribunal." (emphasis supplied) 38. The Central Sales Tax Appellate Authority also noted that there were documents on record to show the modus operandi of the transactions with similarly situated customers but as the matter was being remanded, it would not be ne....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e to be decided in the appeals. Some other typical transactions for each year should also be analyzed and. appropriate findings have to be reached. The other details, relating to despatches, sales and the pending allotments for a few months can also be looked into by the Tribunal to cross-check whether the movement of goods can be attributed to antecedent contracts of sale. Before closing the case, we may mention that in the written submissions filed on behalf of the State of Orissa, a stand has been taken that the TBS scheme itself is in the nature of offer for sale and it has all the nuances of an agreement to sell. It is difficult to construe the scheme itself as constituting an offer of sale or having the attributes of a sale agreement. The TBS scheme, it must be noted, is a broad framework within which the regulated transactions have taken place. Though the, offer and ultimate agreement owe their origin to the scheme, it is wrong to characterize the scheme itself as spelling out an agreement of sale. The mere fact that the objective of the scheme is stated to be to give commitment to the customers regarding supply of materials against firm orders does not lead to the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Therefore, even if the goods are produced from and supplied by RSP, it cannot be said that there was any binding contract between the RSP and the customer. We are unable to accept the above argument, because firstly, there can be no segregation between SAIL as an organization and its constituent Units, i.e. 7 (seven) Steel Plants (including RSP) and nearly 40 (forty) branches. In such premises, even though the branch offers goods to the party which can be produced from any one or more of the Steel Plants, resultantly, the Steel Plant from which the goods in question are actually produced and supplied becomes the seller for the purpose of assessment of tax. Therefore, in our considered view, the offer letter issued after registration of demand by the party under TBS Scheme is nothing but an agreement of sale of goods at a future date between RSP and the buyer albeit, through the branch office. Xxxxxxxxx 38. Having held that there is an agreement of sale prior to production and that the presence of a branch in between RSP (dealer) and the ultimate seller is immaterial, it is now required to be seen whether the goods in question had actually moved from RSP i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion to give quantity of goods to a customer over which RSP has no control. The above contention is not acceptable because the very objective of TBS Scheme is "xxx to establish a long term commercial relationship of confidence between SAIL and its customers with a commitment of supply of materials within a predetermined time schedule. It is based on a commitment on the part of SAIL to meet the demands of customers and supply the materials against confirmed orders within a time schedule." (Emphasis supplied) That apart, it is seen that the quarterly production plans of the Steel Plants are decided centrally by the CPPD on the basis of work orders issued by different branches. The said plans (dispatch plans) are sent to the concerned regional offices for production by the plants. Again, the goods so produced are dispatched to the branch offices bearing reference to the dispatch plans and work orders. In any case, the dealer has not adduced cogent evidence to support its contention that the goods are produced in bulk and in continuous process. The further contention that the BSO has discretion to give quantity of goods to a customer over which RSP has no con....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d) 43. The issue that arises for consideration is whether the Sales Tax Tribunal, after remand of the matter by the Central Sales Tax Appellate Authority, has recorded findings contrary to the findings recorded by the Central Sales Tax Appellate Authority in the remand order dated 15.03.2010. 44. As noted above, the order dated 15.03.2010 passed by the Central Sales Tax Appellate Authority had attained finality and so the findings recorded by the Central Sales Tax Appellate Authority would be binding on the Sales Tax Tribunal. The findings recorded by the Central Sales Tax Appellate Authority have been extensively referred to above and what transpires is that a categorical finding with regard to the TBS Scheme was recorded. The Central Sales Tax Appellate Authority observed that it was difficult to construe the TBS Scheme as constituting an offer of sale or having the attributes of a sale agreement. In fact, the Appellate Authority noted the TBS Scheme was a broad framework within which the regulated transactions had taken place. The Appellate Authority also noted that though the offer and ultimate agreement owe their origin to the Scheme, it would be wrong to characterize th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ged any claim on the basis of registration or pre-offer nor any of them filed any suit or other legal proceeding against the appellant on that basis. 47. It is this finding of the Sales Tax Tribunal that the pre-offer made by the appellant under the TBS Scheme is an agreement to sale that formed the basis for the decision taken by the Sales Tax Tribunal because basis this finding, the Sales Tax Tribunal proceeded to examine whether the movement of the goods was occasioned by the said agreement for if there was no prior agreement to sell, then this vital requirement would not be satisfied. 48. The Central Sales Tax Appellate Authority, while examining the transaction pertaining to Mechanical Wire Industries, also held that as the goods were standard goods and not tailor-made for any buyer, the production programme was based on assessment of market demand in general rather than for catering to the requirements of particular customers. Thus, it rejected the earlier finding recorded by the Sales Tax Tribunal that the offer letter initially issued after the registration of the demand led to the formation of a contract of sale. The Appellate Authority found the finding of the Sales....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat the limited offer after registration cannot be considered as an agreement to sell and that there was no link between the contract of sale and the movement of goods. 51. Learned senior counsel for the appellant submitted that there is no difference between the transactions in respect of Mechanical Wire Industries and the other seven transactions, and indeed the learned counsel appearing for the State of Odisha has not been able to controvert this statement. The findings recorded by the Central Sales Tax Appellate Authority in respect of Mechanical Wire Industries would, therefore, cover the seven remaining other transactions. 52. The findings recorded by the Central Sales Tax Appellate Authority on this issue are contained in paragraphs 8 and 8.1 of the order and the same have been reproduced in paragraph 37 of this decision. After a detailed analysis of the documents on record, the Central Sales Tax Appellate Authority recorded a categorical finding of fact that the offer letter was actually given to the buyer after the wagon arrived at the branch and rejected the contention of the State of Odisha that the initial offer after the registration was an agreement to sell. It ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ned in the pre-offers or registrations. This position is quite clear from the charts in respect of each of the said eight parties provided by the appellant. It is on the basis of such final offers that goods were sold. In the final offers there is no reference to the pre-offer, as incorrectly assumed by Sales Tax Tribunal. All the documents of the plant are in the names of the branches. In none of the documents of the plant, there is any reference to any of the said eight parties or any registration or pre-offer/offer of the said parties. The finding recorded by the Sales Tax Tribunal that whatever was apportioned by the planning departments to a particular plant has to be treated as sale by that plant is perverse. The planning activities were regularly undertaken by different wings, like Central Planning and Production Department and Central Marketing Organisation on all India basis for all the steel plants of the appellant and the same were not related to any contract or any buyer at the branch. Other documents mentioned in the impugned order such as wagon card register and work order are internal documents of the branch and have nothing to do with the plants or any inter-State s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... purpose; (iv) Sale and movement of goods must be integral parts of the same transaction. The word "occasions" is used as a verb and means "to cause or to be the immediate cause". There must be direct nexus between the sale and the movement and the movement should be incident of and necessitated by the contract of sale and thus be interlinked with the sale; (v) Even if the agreement in question constitutes a contract of sale, it would still have to be shown that the sale in question occasioned the movement from one State to another; (vi) If manufacture of goods, and their movement is an incident of the contract of sale entered into with the buyer and it is intended that the same goods should be delivered by the branch to the buyer and there is no break in the movement, presence of branch as an intermediary or as a conduit makes no difference. It will, however, be a different situation if particular goods are despatched to the branch without reference to any order placed by the buyer and for sale in the open market; and (vii) A mere transfer of goods to branches, which are broadly brought under the phrase "branch transfers" cannot be regarded as s....