SHYAM BIRI WORKS LTD Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) W.P. Nos. 2060, 58, 59, 130, 1917, 1918, 1919, 1920, 2665, 2666, 2667, 2685, 2686, 2687, 2691, 2692, 2693, 2694, 2695, 2696, 2700, 2701, 2702 & 2703 of 2002, W.P. Nos. 94, 97, 129, 176, 177, 277, 278, 393, 406, 407, 424, 675, 687, 846, 853, 884, 1115 & 2158 of 2003, W.P.(T) Nos. 5307, 5806, 6135, 6193, 6195, 6288, 6353, 6464, 6482, 6504, 6505, 6521, 6555, 6593, 6617, 6666, 6715, 6722, 6775, 6829, 6830, 6865, 6984, 6999, 7170, 7256, 7470, 7484 & 7593 of 2007, W.P.(T) Nos. 402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 407, 408, 409, 1405, 1406, 1407, 1408, 1409, 1410, 1411, 1412, 1413, 1414, 1415, 1416, 1417, 1418, 2599, 2600, 2812 & 6430 of 2008, W.P.(T) Nos. 947, 1589, 3309, 3785, 3786, 3787, 3823, 3824, 3827, 4064, 4101, 4189, 4193, 4194, 4244, 4278, 4326, 4353, 4354, 4356, 4357, 4358, 4367, 4411, 4412, 4415, 4416, 4417, 4481, 4494, 4505, 4506, 4519, 4533, 4534, 4535, 4538, 4541, 4542, 4547, 4548, 4553, 4554, 4599, 4600, 4601, 4607, 4608, 4611, 4612, 4614, 4615, 4616, 4624, 4629, 4630, 4631, 4633, 4646, 4655, 4659, 4660, 4677, 4685, 4686, 4687, 4693, 4694, 4695, 4696, 4698, 4699, 4706, 4713, 4714, 4723, 4724, 4732, 4742, 4743, 4744, 4745, 4746, 4747, 4748, 4753, 4770, 4771, 4772, 4773, 4774, 4777, 4778, 4833, 4850, 4853, 4859, 4860, 4861, 4862, 4874, 4879, 4880, 4900, 4902, 4908, 4913, 4915, 4916, 4917, 4919, 4925, 4926, 4946, 4947, 4952, 4953, 4954, 4957, 4958, 4959, 4979, 5033, 5041, 5048, 5052, 5057, 5058, 5068, 5069, 5072, 5110, 5116, 5123, 5155, 5156, 5220, 5221, 5281, 5327, 5328, 5384, 5405, 5406, 5407, 5432, 5439, 5441, 5457, 5458, 5480, 5481, 5482, 5486, 5487, 5492, 5494, 5498, 5499, 5500, 5509, 5510, 5511, 5516, 5524, 5525, 5526, 5550, 5573, 5575, 5576, 5577, 5579, 5588, 5618, 5666, 5668, 5669, 5670, 5677, 5678, 5679, 5680, 5681, 5682, 5694, 5697, 5698, 5706, 5707, 5708, 5709, 5710, 5726, 5727, 5728, 5729, 5730, 5731, 5732, 5733, 5734, 5738, 5739, 5773, 5774, 5808, 5810, 5828, 5832, 5855, 5856, 5882, 5899, 5900, 5928, 5931, 5943, 5944, 5945, 5948, 5949, 5950, 5953, 5956, 6010, 6011, 6012, 6013, 6014, 6015, 6021, 6022, 6023, 6024, 6125, 6140, 6141, 6142, 6171, 6188, 6190, 6191, 6192, 6193, 6194, 6203, 6234, 6237, 6238, 6264, 6265, 6266, 6267, 6268, 6310, 6312, 6318, 6324, 6333, 6464, 6465, 6740, 6764, 6765, 6766, 6820 & 7479 of 2009, W.P.(T) Nos. 105, 331, 409, 410, 454, 518, 1161, 1163, 1164, 1235, 1240, 1316, 1317, 1332, 1336, 1389, 1390, 1391, 1392, 1393, 1394, 1395, 1396, 1397, 1403, 1404, 1505, 1512, 1551, 1552, 1553, 1558, 1570, 1572, 1616, 1617, 1618, 1619, 1625, 1641, 1666, 1667, 1735, 1737, 1742, 1754, 1764, 1765, 1766, 1786, 1787, 1788, 1789, 1828, 1830, 1831, 1832, 1869, 1870, 1871, 1872, 1873, 1874, 1875, 1876, 1878, 1883, 1884, 1914, 1915, 1916, 1917, 1942, 1950, 1951, 1956, 1960, 1969, 1970, 2037, 2038, 2078, 2079, 2090, 2106, 2128, 2129, 2130, 2131, 2151, 2152, 2153, 2154, 2155, 2156, 2157, 2158, 2159, 2160, 2161, 2162, 2200, 2201, 2214, 2215, 2216, 2217, 2218, 2219, 2220, 2239, 2253, 2302, 2303, 2304, 2343, 2365, 2439, 2440, 2445, 2454, 2455, 2456, 2457, 2458, 2459, 2460, 2499, 2500, 2501, 2590, 2593, 2594, 2595, 2620, 2621, 2649, 2694, 2697, 2699, 2700, 2701, 2706, 2707, 2708, 2727, 2730, 2752, 2755, 2757, 2758, 2759, 2767, 2783, 2786, 2787, 2842, 2870, 2881, 2886, 2887, 2919, 2920, 2944, 2946, 2947, 3000, 3005, 3007, 3019, 3032, 3055, 3056, 3057, 3058, 3069, 3080, 3081, 3086, 3093, 3094, 3097, 3098, 3156, 3205, 3275, 3287, 3288, 3289, 3306, 3307, 3375, 3376, 3391, 3401, 3402, 3408, 3427, 3470, 3525, 3526, 3527, 3528, 3529, 3556, 3576, 3577, 3579, 3705, 3754, 3757, 3758, 3759, 3776, 3798, 3905, 3907, 3908, 3914, 3915, 3970, 4013, 4029, 4135, 4505, 4524, 4533, 4536, 4539, 4540, 4542, 4577, 4578, 4666, 4667, 4695 & 4870 of 2010, involve a common question of law asto whether purchase of tendu leaves by the petitioners, who are registered exporters under the Chhattisgarh Tendu Patta (Vyapar Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 1964 (for short "the Adhiniyam, 1994") read with the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Tendu Patta (Vyapar Viniyaman) Niyamavali, 1966 (for short "the Niyamavali, 1966"), falls within the definition of inter- state sale or intra-state sale.

(2.) THE facts, which are common, in brief, for disposal of this batch petitions, are that the petitioners are dealers of tendu leaves, registered as 'exporters of tendu leaves'. A tender notice was issued by the respondent - Chhattisgarh State Minor Forest Produce (Trading & Development) Co-op. Federation Limited (for short "the Federation"). Pursuant to the said tender notice, the petitioners submitted their tender forms for purchase of tendu leaves. On consideration of the tender forms, the petitioners were allotted various tendu leaves lots. THEreafter, purchase agreement under condition No. 7 of the tender notice was executed between the Governor of Chhattisgarh acting through the Conservator of Forest, ex officio General Manager of the Federation. THE petitioners were required to pay taxes under the terms of the purchaser's agreement. Thus, these petitions.

(3.) SHRI Agrawal would next submit that the sale in the case on hand is inter-state sale. Even if contract of sale itself does not provide for the movement of goods from one State to another, but such movement was as a result of an incident of the contract. In support of his contention, SHRI Agrawal placed reliance upon the decisions of Simlipahar Forest Development Corporation Ltd. v. State of Orrisa1, W.A. Shah Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. District Forest Officer, Karnataka Soaps & Detergents Ltd. v. District Forest Officer. The petitioners are not free to export tendu leaves without TP-4 wherein the route and timing of the journey and destination is clearly provided. Condition No. 4 of Annexure - II of the tender notice, which was condition precedent for taking delivery of goods from the Federation, pursuant to sale of tendu leaves make it clear that sale was as a result of implied contract of sale. The State of Chhattisgarh has no jurisdiction to charge the local taxes at the rate of 20%, as the same is contrary to the provisions of CST. He further placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in State of Orissa v. K.B. Saha and Sons Industries (P) Ltd. and Ors. to the effect that the identical issues were involved in the cases and the transaction in question was held as inter-state sale.