METRO TYRES LTD Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The assessee is a registered dealer borne on the rolls of the Assistant Commissioner, Assessment, Special Circle, Mattanchery. For the assessment year 95-96, he filed a nil return. The books of accounts of the dealer were collected and verified by the Assessing Officer. It was found that an amount of Rs.3,35,369/- was not supported by F Form and in the absence of any documents it is treated as inter state sale. Likewise, the defective fans said to have been sent to Noida in UP for an amount of Rs.10,66,858/- was contended to be purchased from out of the state. In the absence of supporting evidence it was treated as inter state sale.

(2.) However, the branch transfer effected to outside the state for Rs.2,67,373 was found to be supported by F Form and accordingly exemption was granted. Accordingly, it was proposed to complete the CST assessment for 95-96 estimating the interstate sale on Rs.14,02,227/- and tax at the rate of 11%. On issuing notice, the assessee filed his objection contending that the rate of defective for Rs.3,35,360/- is properly covered by documents, but the assessee did not however produced F form for the said transaction before the Assessing Officer till the order of assessment was passed. In the absence of F Form, the claim of the assessee in this regard was disallowed. The contention that an amount of Rs.10,66,858/- representing value of the defective fans sent to Noida, it was found that the assessee purchased the goods. For that also, there was no F Form produced. Hence this claim was also rejected. The inter state sales tax due was accordingly assessed. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals). The main challenge was that the return of the defective fans to the consigner outside the Sate was on proper documents. According to him, he produced all the documents before the Assessing authority which has not been properly considered by him. The defective fans for Rs.10,66,858/- were sent to the factory at Noida under instructions from the sellers and that the transfer was supported by proper documents and the Assessing Officer has not considered the evidence so produced. These contentions were examined by the appellate authority. It was found that both for repair work and return, however the interstate transfer from Kerala was not supported by declaration in F Form and as such the assessee was not entitled to the benefit of treating this as a branch transfer. The appellate authority found in such circumstances, that there is no merit in this appeal and dismissed.

(3.) The appellant further challenged the correctness of that order in second appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal again considered this matter. The finding of the first appellate authority was extracted in page 4 of the Tribunals order. The Tribunal after referring to the appellate order found that the appellant had not produced F Form to produce stock transfer, even though that by itself may not be sufficient to prove stock transfer and that it is the physical transport of goods under Section 6A of the C.S.T.Act. Since the appellant did not produce any documents to prove physical transfer of goods across the boundary and in the absence of F Form, claim was disallowed and the appeal was also dismissed as the Tribunal did not find any merit in the appeal. It is challenging these orders by the authorities below, that the revision is filed.