STATE OF TAMIL NADU Vs. GENERAL ENGINEERING STORES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Revenue has filed this revision against the order of the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Second Additional Bench), Madras, dated February 20, 1982. THE following fact situation was noticed by the Tribunal : "the purchase order is dated November 8, 1978, for the supply of M. S. rex bolts and nuts 38 x 16 mm. 3, 000 kgs. for Rs. 16, 080. Another purchase order is dated November 10, 1978, for the supply of M. S. rex bolts and nuts 45x 16mm. 3, 000 kgs. for Rs. 16, 080 and in both the purchase orders condition 12 stipulates that the supply should exactly conform to the quality of the approved samples and should be correct size and superior quality materials as per the specification as otherwise the supply will be rejected and returned to the appellants at their cost. Clause 14 says that the bill of cost for the above should be presented in triplicate duly original stamped and pre-receipted. So both the purchase orders would show that the purchasers have placed orders with the appellants for manufacture and supply of specific items of goods which were not in existence and as such the goods were of future in nature. THE letter dated June 25, 1978 from the general store-keeper, Katpadi, to the appellants would show the rejection of the goods supplied under challan nos. 213 dated January 27, 1979, 300/february 2, 1979 and 301/february 21, 1979 for defects, requesting the appellants to take back the same and to replace the same by goods as per specifications. Letter dated May 2, 1979, from the superintending Engineer, Vellore, would show that the materials supplied by the appellants under two bills (279/january 27, 1979 and 303/february 20, 1979)have been rejected as defective. Letter dated June 23, 1979, from the Super intending Engineer, Vellore, would show the return of goods under Bill Nos. 278/january 27, 1978, 300/february 19, 1979 and 305/february 21, 1979 as the goods were defective. So the documents filed by the learned authorised representative would go to show that on the date of agreement entered into by the appellants, the goods were not in existence and goods had to be manufactured by the appellants as per the specific orders by the purchasers. THE documents would show that though the goods were sent by the appellants to the purchasers, the purchasers did not accept the same and rejected the supply after verification as the goods were found to be defective. Further the documents would show that the bills sent by the appellants were also returned unpaid as the goods were rejected as defective in nature. " *

(2.) THE only point, therefore, which requires consideration in the aforesaid facts situation, the correctness whereof has neither been disputed nor doubted before us by the Revenue, is whether it is a case of sale return as held by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner or a case of unfructified sale, as found by the Tribunal.