Decided on January 22,1998

Mas Trading Co. And Investment Pvt. Limited Appellant


Girija Jagannath, Member (A) - (1.) THIS is an appeal filed against the orders of the Deputy Commissioner (CT), Punjagutta Division, Hyderabad, in proceedings R.R. No. 132/95 -96, dated 20.5.1996 arising out of the orders of the Commercial Tax Officer, Ranigunj Circle, Secunderabad, in assessment No. 31061/91 -92 (CST), dated 26.6.1993. The appellant is a dealer in imitation jewellery and other goods and was assessed on gross and net turnovers of Rs. 35,83,415/ - and Rs. 1,06,769/ - respectively. The assessment order was revised by the Deputy Commissioner (CT) on two issues namely, that a turnover of Rs. 17,760/ - was wrongly treated as covered by 'C' forms and that a turnover of Rs. 34,72,346/ - was wrongly exempted treating it as branch transfers. The appellant is aggrieved by the revision and has preferred this appeal before us.
(2.) THE point to be considered is, whether the revision is valid and legal and whether the disputed turnover of Rs. 34,76,646/ - is liable to tax under the CST Act and whether a turnover of Rs. 17,760/ - is eligible for concessional rates? The appellant has assailed the revision on the following grounds: (i) that as held by the Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Kerala vs. Cherin Abdulla & Co., (1965) XVI STC 875 (SO, the revising authority is not empowered to enter generally upon enquiries which may properly be made by the assessing authorities and to reopen assessments; (ii) that while the appellant has discharged its onus by producing 'F' forms, delivery challans, way bills, stock transfer memos, registration certificate of Bombay Branch and its assessment order, the revising authority merely rejected the evidence without giving any reason therefore. (iii) that when the revising authority disbelieved the movement of goods from Hyderabad to Bombay, he ought to have treated them as local sales, but not tax them as inter -State sales; (iv) that regarding the turnover of Rs. 17,760/ - it was validly covered by 'C forms which ought not have been rejected, simply because they were issued in the name of 'Celebrations', Ranigunj, Secunderabad which was nothing but the appellant's trade name.
(3.) COUNSEL for the appellant vehemently argued that the appellant had discharged its burden entirely before the assessing authority by producing all the relevant documents like 'F' forms. Way -bills, Delivery Challans, Stock Transfer Memos in support of the branch transfers made to Bombay. The revising authority cannot once again ask the appellant to prove the movement otherwise by way of sale. The revising authority pointed out no defects in the evidence submitted by the assessee. On the other hand, he suspected the very movement of the goods from Hyderabad to Bombay, because they were carried by a messenger by train. Jewellery being delicate goods had to be carried personally, and the appellant was not obliged to preserve the railway tickets evidencing the journey undertaken from Hyderabad to Bombay. Railway tickets are in any case to be surrendered at the station of destination and if the movement of goods from Hyderabad to Bombay was disbelieved, there was no issue for consideration under the CST Act. Such goods would then be liable to tax locally, if proved to have been sold locally. The revising authority was not right in ignoring assessment order passed by the Commercial Tax Officer, Bombay in respect of the branch which included sales relating to stock transferred from Hyderabad. Such stock transfer was also clearly shown in the appellant's CST assessment order. There was no other way that the appellant would prove branch transfers. The appellant was also eligible for concessional rate in view of the 'C forms issued by customers in favour of its trade name.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.