TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (8) TMI 1688
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ses are of the same assessees and the grounds of challenge also being the same, the question of law to be decided also being the same, all these connected matters are taken up and decided by this common order. For convenience, T. R.E.C.V.No.2 of 2008 is being taken as the lead case so far as the facts are concerned. 2. Heard Mr. K. Raji Reddy, learned Senior Standing Counsel, appearing on behalf of Mr. Rasuri Shivaraj, learned Additional Government Pleader for Commercial Tax Department, for the petitioners; and Mr. S. Dwarakanath, learned Counsel for the respondents in all the Revisions. 3. The present Tax Revision Case has been filed under Section 22 (1) read with Rule 10 of APGST Rules, under the APGST Act. Vide the said revision ca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....clinker. Therefore, the value of the clinker transferred amounting to Rs.77,49,460/- was not granted the exemption or incentive as claimed. 6. The respondent - assesse immediately challenged the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner in the revision by way of an appeal before the STAT. The appeal of the respondent - assesse was allowed by the STAT affirming the order of assessment officer granting exemption for the transfer of clinker made by the respondent from Unit-I to Unit-II. It is this granting of exemption by the STAT and setting aside of the order of the revisional authority which has led the appellant - State Government to the filing of the instant Tax Revision Case under Section 22 (1) read with Rule 10 of the APGST Rules, und....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aw material for production of cement, but, have been claiming the sales tax exemption under the sales tax incentive scheme. Thus, the integrating of the two units by the respondent was with the sole purpose of avoiding sales tax liability. And as a consequence, the respondent - assessee was not even paying the sales tax even upto the base production level, as was required under the Final Eligibility Certificate. 10. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant drew the attention of this Court to the case of The K.C.P. Limited (Ramakrishna Cements) Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh-[(1993) 88 STC 374 (AP)]. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the facts in the case of The K.C.P. Limited, supra, were entirely different than the facts in the inst....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....It was further contended by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant that Unit-I had been collecting the sales tax though they were not required to be paid immediately under the deferment scheme, but was required to be paid at a later stage. So far as Unit-Il is concerned, since they are availing the benefit under the sales tax holiday, they are not required to collect tax from its customers. 14. It was lastly contended that since admittedly the two units belong to the same company, there could not had been a situation where the respondent would had to sell clinker to itself, which by itself sounds absurd. And the order of the STAT finds force from the judgment relied upon in the case of KCP Limited supra. 15. Having hea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er, this High Court in the case of The K.C.P. Limited, (1) supra while laying down the ratio in the decision, held as under: "It is axiomatic that sale can only take between two persons. There cannot be any sale to one's self unless, of course, he acts in a different capacity. The definition of "sale" both under the APGST Act as well as the CST Act makes it crystal-clear that in order to constitute a sale, there must be transfer of property in goods for consideration by one person to another (emphasis* supplied). The concept of sale in the Sale of Goods Act is no different. Section 4 contemplates a seller and buyer to be parties to a contract of sale. When a sale takes place, the seller is divested of the property in goods and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ot be said to be illegal and the High Court held as under: "There is nothing illegal or impermissible to a party so arranging its affairs that the liability to pay tax would not be attracted or that the brunt of taxation would be reduced to the minimum". 19. For all the aforesaid reasons, we are of the firm view that only because a company is having two different registered units, it cannot be treated as two different persons and in the given circumstances if Unit-I transfers clinker to Unit-II, the same cannot be treated as a sale. 20. Since both the units belong to the respondent themselves and it is here that this Court in the case of The K.C.P. Limited, (1) supra, had held that there cannot be any sale to oneself. We are ....