- (1.) The captioned revision has been preferred under section 24(1) of the Odisha Sales Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act') against the order dated 28.12.2010 passed by the Odisha Sales Tax Tribunal, Cuttack (in short 'learned Tribunal') in S.A. No. 114 of 1999-2000. FACTS :
(2.) The factual matrix leading to the case of the petitioner is that the petitioner carries on business in cars, motor vehicle spare parts and accessories being authorized dealer of car produced by M/s. Premier Automobiles Ltd., Mumbai. For carrying on its business, petitioner has three branches; one at Cantonment Road, Cuttack, Odisha; at Bhubaneswar, Odisha and at Mumbai, registered with STOC 150, Ghatkopar Division, New Mumbai. Petitioner, at its Cuttack Branch used to sell other automobile vehicles, namely, Hero Honda motorcycles, components, accessories and spare parts of Premier cars for which it has already paid tax to the Sales Tax Officer and for that used to pay sales tax under Odisha Sales Tax Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act'). Since the petitioner has no sale at Cuttack Branch of cars manufactured by M/s. Premier Automobiles Ltd., Mumbai, did not pay any tax under the Act. It is alleged, inter alia, that the learned Sales Tax Officer, Cuttack-I, Central Circle, Cuttack, the Assessing Officer, issued notice to produce the books of accounts. At the same time, the Assessing Officer got fraud case report against the petitioner. The report says that 176 numbers of cars have been procured from its branch office at Mumbai and sold to consumers at Odisha. According to the petitioner, no sale of such cars takes place in Cuttack because a customer desirous of purchasing Padmini car from the Mumbai under direct billing system, gives a letter of authorization in favour of the branch office situated at Mumbai to receive and to appoint a Transporter to drive down the vehicle from Mumbai to the destination mentioned in the letter of authorisation. While explaining the business, the petitioner explained that after the money is received from the customer, petitioner used to issue a money receipt in acknowledgement of the deposit made by the customer and then sends the said cheque or draft to Mumbai branch office intimating about the purchase of the car by the customer from Mumbai branch. The manufacturing company delivers the vehicle to Mumbai branch and raises the invoices in the name of Mumbai branch of the petitioner-company. Then the Mumbai branch intimates the petitioner-company over telephone or FAX with regard to the chasis number and engine number of the vehicle received in the name of the customer. Then the branch of petitioner-company in Odisha informs the customer about the consignment of the vehicle from Mumbai to Odisha and asked the petitioner to prepare insurance cover note for transporting and driving down the vehicle from Mumbai to the place of destination.
(3.) It is also alleged, inter alia, that the petitioner also gets temporary registration number of the vehicle at the office of Regional Transport office, Mumbai. When the vehicle of the customer reaches at the registered office of the petitioner-company at Cuttack, petitioner-company at Cuttack undertakes necessary servicing, washing of the vehicle and then hand over the vehicle to the customer. According to the petitioner, the entire transaction is an inter-State transaction under section 3(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 ('C.S.T. Act' in short) and the same is not a intra-State transaction. After verifying the books of accounts and hearing the matter from the petitioner, the Sales Tax Officer without any valid reason, added Rs.3,99,05,248.81 paise with the gross taxable turn over of the petitioner taking the sale of 176 numbers of cars as intra-State sale. Thereafter the petitioner preferred appeal under sub-section 1 of Section 23 of the Act raising several grounds to support its claim. The First Appellate Authority, Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax held that the sale in question being inter-State sale is covered under section 3(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act and the same cannot be exigible under the State Sales Tax Act for which directed the deletion of the said amount of Rs.3,99,05,248.81 paise from its gross turn over and re-assess the tax payable by the petitioner-company.;