ASHOK LEYLAND LIMITED Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) Ashok Leyland Limited, the appellant herein, is one of the major manufacturers of trucks and other motor vehicles in India. Its registered office is at Madras (Chennai). The plants manufacturing trucks and motor vehicles are situated in the State of Tamil Nadu as well as in other States. The trucks and vehicles manufactured by it are sold all over the country. For its business purposes, it maintains Regional Sales Offices (RSOs) indifferent parts of the country like, Bangalore, Trivandrum, Vijayawada, Pune, Nagpur, Indore, Calcutta, Bhubaneswar, Gauhati, Pondicherry, and so on. The appellant says that each of these Rs. Os maintains an office, a stock yard and other necessary paraphernalia for receiving, stocking, repairing and delivering motor vehicles to their customers. The appellant says that almost seventy per cent of its sales are to parties other than State Transport Undertakings (STUs). The sales to STUs are in the region of thirty per cent of its production. The Rs. Os, the appellant says, contact the local purchasers and the STUs book the orders and also deliver the vehicles to them pursuant to sales effected by them. The appellant always keeps the Rs. Os well stocked having regard to their requirements. By way of illustration, it is stated, the Rs. O at Hyderabad receives vehicles from Tamil Nadu from time to time. In respect of the vehicles sold in A. P.- whether to Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation or to other parties - sales tax is levied and collected by the State of A. P. inasmuch as they are intra-State sales for the purpose of the A. P. General Sales Tax Act. Over the years, the appellant says, it has been sending the trucks, chassis and other vehicles to Rs. Os all over the country under 'f' Form and at no time was the correctness of the 'f' Forms produced by it questioned by anyone. However, the State of Tamil Nadu has been seeking, in the recent times, to reopen the concluded assessments contending that the transfer of vehicles from Tamil Nadu to other States was not mere consignments (without effecting sales) but constitute inter-State sales within the meaning of clause (a) of Section 3 of the central Sales Tax Act, which are taxable in the State of Tamil Nadu by virtue of the provisions of the central Sales Tax Act. The attempt of the State of Tamil Nadu is to treat the said movement of vehicles as inter-State sales and tax them which would ultimately go back to that State by virtue of the provisions contained in Articles 269 and 286 of the Constitution and the central Sales Tax Act. The appellant says that it did not effect any inter-State sales and that there was only one sale in the other State which has already been taxed under the sales tax law of that other State. The appellant complains that the same transaction cannot be taxed twice, once as an intra-State sale by one State and again by the State of Tamil Nadu as an inter-State sale. The appellant complains that the reopening of assessments in some cases, even the reassessment has been made and central sales tax levied and taxing the same transaction once again (by the State of Tamil Nadu) is causing serious harassment to the appellant, making it impossible for it to carry on its business operations in a smooth and orderly manner. It approached the Madras High court with the said grievance. Though a number of factual issues were also raised in the writ petitions filed by the appellant, it was stated by their counsel at the time of hearing that they do not propose to invite the decision of the High court on these factual issues and that they would be confining their submissions only to the questions of law, viz. , the interpretation of Section 6-A of the central Sales Tax Act and the power to reopen the orders accepting 'f'forms. In certain other writ petitions filed by the appellant, several State governments were impleaded as respondents. The prayer in these writ petitions was that inasmuch as sales to STUs of those States are being a treated and taxed as inter-State sales by the State of Tamil Nadu, the levy of tax under the other State sales tax enactments treating the very sales as intra state sales within those respective States is unsustainable, and, therefore, those State governments should be directed to refund the tax collected by them to the appellant. The High court has dismissed the writ petitions holding that (t) the Madras High court cannot direct the other State governments to refund the tax levied and collected under their respective State sales tax enactments. The appellant has to approach the authorities under those Acts or the courts in those States for such relief, if they are so advised. ((r)) The provisions contained in Section 6-A have no special status or content and cannot be elevated to the status of a constitutional provision; it is like any other provision under the central Sales Tax Act. The order accepting Form 'f' is nothing more than a step-in-aid of, or a part and parcel of, the assessment proceedings, (iii) An order passed by the assessing authority accepting Form 'f' cannot be reopened except in accordance with S. 16, 32 and 55 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act read with sub-sections (2 and (2-A) of Section 9 of the central Sales Tax Act. A mere change of opinion is not sufficient to reopen the order accepting Form 'f'. Having declared the law thus, the High court directed the appellant to prefer appeals before the appropriate appellate authority where an order of assessment has been made and to go and show cause to the assessing authority where the appellant has approached the High court at the stage of show-cause notice.

(3.) Shri K. Parasaran, learned counsel for the appellant, urged the following contentions: