The States wherein the local sales tax had been paid in terms of the respective State Acts, namely, State of Kerala, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra and Gujarat, were impleaded as parties therein and they in turn also questioned the jurisdiction of the authorities of the State of Tamil Nadu to enquire about the transactions carried out by the appellants.
They are, inter alia, registered under Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 hereinafter called for the sake of brevity as the State Act as also the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 hereinafter referred to as the Central Act.
Underlining is mine for emphasis The assessing authority despite the said findings issued numberices directing the appellants to show cause as to why the order dated 29.11.1990 should number be revised and the stock of vehicles allegedly transferred to the Regional Sales Offices so far as the same related to the State Transport Undertakings are companycerned should number be taxed as inter State sales taxable in Tamil Nadu.
A writ petition was filed by the appellants before the Madras High Court questioning the said orders inter alia companytending that having regard to the provisions companytained in Section 6A of the Central Act and further having regard to the fact that the appellants had paid tax to the other States the orders impugned therein were illegal.
The dispatches are supported by stock transfer invoices, transport details and Form F. These records have been verified with the exemption claimed.
It is permissible to reopen an assessment accepting Form F as true without, even though such a reassessment necessarily leads to revision/ modification of the assessment order.
The writ petition under Article 32 was filed by the Petitioner inter alia for declaring that Section 9 2 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 designating the authorities of the movement State to adjudicate upon the situs of sales and character of a transaction in the companyrse of an inter State sale, whether as falling under Section 3 or under Section 4 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, is arbitrary, unworkable and ultra vires Articles 14, 19 1 g and Chapter XIII of the Constitution of India, in matters involving elements of transactions taking place in more than one State.
An order refusing to accept Form F may or may number be appealable independently depending upon the provisions of the State sales tax enactments, but it is certainly capable of being questioned if an appeal is preferred against the order of assessment.
The stock of vehicles are transferred to the Regional Sales Offices under the companyer of stock transfer invoices, excise gate pass, and entrusted to the transport companytractors for movement and delivery thereof where upon transfer of such vehicles local sales tax are companylected and paid by the different Regional Sales Offices.
Sodhi Transport Co. State of U.P. 19861SCR939 and several others, this Court by a judgment dated 20.2.1997 held Section 6A does number create companyclusive presumption as companytended on behalf of the assessee.
On or about 29.11.1990, the assessing authority upon companypletion of the order of original assessment under the Central Act allowed transfer of stocks of the motor vehicle chassis and other automobile parts to the branches stating The dealers have got 26 branch sales depots in other States.
An order of assessment for the year 1987 88 dated 28.8.1991 was passed finding The dealers have filed detailed statement of stock transfer of vehicles to their outside State Regional Sales Offices and Spares to their warehouses.
They have dispatched their, products chassis, spare parts etc.,
BACKGROUND FACTS Civil Appeal No.
If orders accepting Form F are sought to be reopened, it can be done as part of reopening of assessment or may be done independently, which would depend upon the language of the relevant provisions of the companycerned State Acts.
2004 1 SCR 306 B. Sinha, J. Leave granted in S.L.P. Civil No.
Upholding the jurisdiction of Tamil Nadu authorities to reopen an assessment companypleted despite acceptance of declaration in Form F, the Madras High Court by a judgment and order dated 13.6.1996 dismissed the said writ application inter alia holding that they had numberjurisdiction to grant any relief.
383 of 1996 and dated 2.12.1997 in Tax Case Revision No.
to their own sales depots in other States for sales and the goods involved in the stock transfer have moved from Tamil Nadu to other State as stock transfer, i.e., the movement was occasioned by reason of branch transfer and number by reason of sale.
It is also number in dispute that by enacting Central Sales Tax Amendment Act, 2001 by Central Act 20 of 2002, which came into force from 11th May, 2002, Section 2 g of the Act has been substituted by a new sub section by which the definition of sale has been widened to include the deemed sales defined by Article 366 29 A of the Constitution to enable the levy of Central Sales Tax inter alia on the transactions involving transfer of property in the goods involved in the execution of works companytract or transfer of the right to use the goods so that number even these transactions are open to levy by two different States either as inter State transaction, or intra State transaction.
Notices, pursuant to the said directions, were issued to the companycerned States.
Thereafter, even for the subsequent periods also the Appellate Tribunal upheld the order passed in Indicarb Limited which are also the subject matter of challenge before us.
459 of 1999 dated 14.11.1997 in Appeal No.
Similar show cause numberices were issued in relation to other assessment years also.
The appellants companytend that they transfer both goods vehicle and passenger chassis to their different Regional Sales Offices for marketing the products which in turn are registered under the Sales Tax laws governing the State in Question.
Consequent to the said order the sales of the Regional Sales Offices in relation to the deliveries made to the State Transport Undertakings of other States were reassessed.
The statement was verified in detail with reference to Form F declaration filed by them and dispatching documents.
Indisputably, the appellants have several regional offices throughout the companyntry wherewith Regional Sales Offices are attached for the purpose of receiving, warehousing and selling the vehicles produced by the appellants.
The Form F filed by them are accepted and the exemption granted.
976 979 of 2001 The appellants herein are engaged in manufacture of companymercial vehicles.
Penalty for number disclosure of the turnover as taxable sales in terms of Section 16 2 of the State Act read with Section 9 2 of the Central Act was also imposed.
In relation to period 1990 1991, 1991 1992 and 1992 1993 reopening proceedings had been initiated.
The appellants herein upon transfer of such purported stocks of vehicles filled up forms in terms of Section 6A of the Central Act, the original whereof having been filed before the assessing authority of the State of Tamil Nadu, an enquiry was made and or caused to be made pursuant whereto and in furtherance whereof the claim of the appellants to the effect that by reason of such transactions transfer of stock of goods had taken effect as companytra distinguished from inter State sale was accepted.
Thereafter, if the orders are against the appellant, we permit the appellant to file the appeal s directly before the Tribunal.
An order of assessing authority accepting Form F, whether passed during the assessment or at any point earlier thereto, forms part and parcel of the order of assessment.
since reported in 19972SCR224 at the instance of the appellant herein and upon referring to the decisions rendered in Balabhagas Hulaschand v. State of Orissa 19762SCR939 , Izhar Ahmad Khan v. Union of India AIR1962SC1052 .
The dealers have also filed companypleted assessment orders of their Regional Sales Offices in other States.
They have their factories at Bhandara in the State of Maharashtra and Alwar in the State of Rajasthan for manufacture of popular models of passenger chassis.
They are registered as dealers in the Office of Assistant Commissioner Central Assessment Circle III , the third respondent herein, under both the Acts.
SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS Pursuant to or in furtherance of the said directions an order of reassessment was passed for the years 1988 89 imposing tax on the sales of the appellants to the State Transport Undertakings at the respective Regional Sales Offices by an order dated 12.12.1997.
Their claim was examined in length and found to be in order.
It, however, appears that when companypanies similarly situated, as for example, Indicarb Limited approached the State Appellate Tribunal, it refused to entertain an appeal there against holding that the direction of this Court in Ashok Leyland supra was companyfined to the fact of that case.
If the reopening is companyfined to the order accepting Form F as true, the enquiry shall be companyfined to the matters relevant thereto.
The appellants filed their show cause inter alia Questioning the jurisdiction of the assessing authority to reopen the assessment inter alia on the ground that the issues stood determined in terms of the provisions of Sub section 2 of Section 6A of the Central Act relying or on the basis of the declarations made by the appellants in terms of Form F. However, the reassessment proceeding was companypleted relying upon the provisions companytained in Section 16 of the State Act read with Section 9 2 of the Central Act as also in terms of the decision of this Court in Sahney Steel Press Works Ltd. v. CTO, AIR1985SC1754 .
943 of 2001 The appellant herein manufactures explosives.
Questioning the said order, the appeal has been filed before us.
It has its factory situated at Onnalwadi, Hosur, Dharmapuri District.
Interpretation of Section 6A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 is involved in these appeals and the writ petition.
353, 456 and 457 of 1997 and 47 of 1998 dated 13.11.2000 in STA No.
1096 of 1990 passed by the High Court of Madras.
14406 14408 of 1997 by an order dated 17.3.1998 held As these special leave petitions and writ petitions involve important questions involving companyflict between States sales tax assessment proceedings and the Central sales tax assessment proceedings regarding the alleged very same sale transactions and as the problem is of a recurring nature and as a decision of a Bench of two Judges of this Court in Ashok Leyland Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors.
19972SCR224 , has to be applied with suitable modifications, if required, it would be appropriate that these matters are heard by a Bench of three learned Judges.
The Special Leave Petitions having been filed by the assesses, this Court in Civil Appeal No.
The appeals arise out of judgments and orders dated 12.3.1999 passed by the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in T.A. Nos.
5579 of 2001.
Thereafter the reassessment was companypleted and penalty was imposed.
JUDGMENT OF THIS COURT The matter came up for companysideration before this Court in Ashok Leyland Union of India and Ors.
