- (1.) THE Sales Tax Tribunal, Haryana (herein after referred to as "the Tribunal"), had referred the following questions of law for the opinion of this Court : (i) Whether the Tribunal was justified in relying on Section 6a of the Central Sales Tax Act in deciding the case and, if not, whether in the facts and circumstances of the case it would materially affect the decision arrived at by the Tribunal ? (ii) Whether the appellate authority was justified in enhancing the taxable turnover on account of inter-State sales tax from Rs. 2,65,134. 56 to Rs. 5,10,664. 90 and whether the Tribunal was correct in upholding this enhancement though no appeal was filed by the Revenue against the order of the Assessing Authority asking for enhancement of the taxable turnover ? and (iii) Whether the Tribunal was justified in coming to the conclusion that it was a case of inter-State sales in the facts and circumstances of the case, even though the stock position statement was on record of the case ?
(2.) THE brief facts figuring in the statement of facts drawn by the Tribunal are that Haryana Iron and Steel Rolling Mills, Hissar, the assessee-petitioner, is a partnership firm engaged in the manufacture of various items of iron and steel in its factory situated at Hissar. The assessee indulges in the sale of manufactured items in the State of Haryana as well as outside the State. It has its head office at Hissar and a branch office at Delhi. It is registered under the General Sales Tax Act, applicable to Haryana (hereinafter referred to as "the Haryana Act") as well as under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "the Central Act" ). The assessee filed four quarterly returns relating to the assessment year 1972-73, declaring a gross" turnover of Rs. 17,15,860. 10, out of which it claimed exemption regarding transactions of the value of Rs. 5,10,664. 90 as transfers by the assessee from its head office at Hissar to its branch office at Delhi where the sale of the goods of the above value are claimed to have been made to various purchasers. The Assessing Authority while framing assessment for the assessment year 1972-73, on the basis of pro forma "b" furnished by the dealer found that goods were moved from Hissar to Delhi in full truck loads and the goods were disposed of on the same day in the same lot. Although there was slight variation in the weighment of goods at Hissar and at Delhi, the Assessing Authority explained the marginal difference in weight because of use of two different weighing scales. The dealer did not produce contracts under which the movement of goods took place nor the purchasing dealer produced order book confirming the true nature and character of the transactions. The Assessing Authority did not believe the statement of the dealer regarding the payment of unloading charges at Delhi office by holding that this evidence was created in order to hoodwink the department because no wise man would like to incur such heavy expenses on unloading of trucks and again in reloading the goods for sending the same to the dealer at Delhi on the same day on which these were received and in the same lot. An adverse inference was drawn against the assessee due to its non-production of the stock register of the branch office and that its account does not contain the expenditure incurred on the weighment of these truck loads of goods. Consequently, the Assessing Authority disallowed the claim of the assessee of transfer of goods amounting to Rs. 2,65,134. 56, It was held that the goods were moved from Hissar in pursuance of the prior existing contract of sale. Being aggrieved against the order of the Assessing Authority, the assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner under the Haryana Act and the Central Act. The Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner confirmed the findings of the Assessing Authority that the goods were moved under a pre-existing contract of sale to Delhi and as such were liable to inter-State sales tax. On the other hand, the appellate authority disallowed the entire claim of the transfer of goods of the value of Rs. 5,10,664. 90 of the assessee by holding that all the goods were moved and sold in the similar lots to different purchasers on the very day on their receipt at the branch office at Delhi. The assessee then preferred second appeal before the Sales Tax Tribunal against the order of the appellate authority. The Tribunal rejected the appeal of the assessee on the ground that in view of the provisions of Section 6a of the Central Act, the burden of proof that the movement of these goods was not occasioned as a result of prior contract of sale, was on the assessee. The conduct of the assessee in not producing the stock register of its Delhi branch office was used as basis for raising the presumption that the goods were never received by the Delhi office and were delivered directly to the buyers at Delhi. The selling of goods in the same lot on the same day to the dealer at Delhi also weighed with the Tribunal.
(3.) THE assessee then claimed a reference to the High Court on the ground that the Tribunal while rejecting the appeal had wrongly resorted to the provisions of Section 6a of the Central Act which came into force on 1st April, 1973. It was claimed that the provisions of Section 6a of the Central Act would be operative prospectively only and not retrospectively. It was also maintained that the Tribunal had wrongly drawn the inference that the goods having moved in pursuance of a pre-existing contract solely on the ground that the goods were sold on the day on which these were received in the branch office at Delhi and in the same lot of truck loads and also from the failure of the assessee to produce the relevant records. Taking the above referred facts into consideration, the Tribunal had referred the three questions, as reproduced above, for the opinion of this Court.;