GAIL INDIA LTD Vs. SALES TAX OFFICER GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant purchases gas from the Oil and Natural Gas Commission (ONGC) which is supplied by it through pipelines from the State of Gujarat to the purchasers within Gujarat and in various other States. According to the appellant, these were only stock transfers in respect of which local sales tax had been paid not only in Gujarat but also in the States in which the sales ultimately took place. In respect of Assessment Years 1994-95 to 1999-2000, assessment orders were passed against the appellant under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (for short "the Act") on the ground that the transfers effected by the appellant were in fact inter-State sales within the meaning of the 1956 Act and, therefore, liable to Central sales tax and that in the absence of any C form the appellant was not entitled to the benefit of the concessional rate of the sales tax duty.

(2.) These appeals have been preferred directly from the assessment orders without exhausting the remedies available to the appellant either under the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 or if that was not available for any reason, then to the High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. According to the appellant, they have approached this Court directly because of the decision of this Court in Ashok Leyland Ltd. V/s. Union of India which had directed similar issues raised to be decided by the local Tribunal. This order has also been followed by another Bench of this Court in K.C.P. Ltd. V/s. State of M.P. At the time of issuing notice, this Court had granted stay of the demand raised by the respondent on the appellant. The interim order is still operative.

(3.) It is pointed out by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent that similar matters had been disposed of by an order passed by this Court on 4.02.2004 by remanding the matter back to the appropriate Tribunal for a decision on the issue whether the sales in question were inter-State or intra-State sales and whether the appellant was liable to pay under the 1956 Act. At that time, the appellant had sought for delinking of its matter on the ground that issues involved in this case were different.