TATA ELXSI LIMITED Vs. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL the above matters involve common uestion of law and fact and, therefore, they are disposed of by this common judgment and order. However for the sake of convenience we are mentioning herein below the facts in Writ Petition No. 792 of 2003.

(2.) BY this writ petition M/s. Tata Elxsi Limited has challenged assessment order dated June 30, 2003 for assessment year 2000-2001 and show cause notice dated August 7, 2003 for assessment year 2001-2002 Facts :

(3.) THE goods were made to order Before the assessing authority, the petitioner contended that since the goods were not in existence, the transfer of right to use did not take place at Haridwar where the agreement was executed According to the petitioner, the placing of the purchase order by the petitioner with the manufacturers/suppliers was only because of the lease agreement between petitioner and Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. and, therefore, the purchase order was an integral part of the lease and, therefore, the purchase order could not be separated from the lease According to the petitioner in the present case petitioner received rental orders from Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. in terms of the lease agreement and in pursuance of the rental orders petitioner placed purchase orders pursuant to which computers were delivered from Bangalore and Delhi to Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. at Haridwar and therefore the transactions were in the nature of inter-State trade According to the petitioners all the computers were supplied against rental orders placed by Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. under the above lease According to the petitioner all the computers were supplied from outside the State of Uttaranchal Before the assessing authority, petitioner plated reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of 20th Century Finance Corpn Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra reported in (2000) 119 STC 182, (2000) UPTC 593 Before the assessing authority, petitioner also relied upon judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of T. C. Classic Finance and Services v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes reported in [1995] 97 STC 330.