STATE OF TAMIL NADU Vs. KOODAL INDUSTRIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN these revision petitions filed by the Revenue under section 38 (1) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 read with section 9 (2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 Assessment vear No. of gunnies Rate per bag Total 1978-79 73, 492 bags x Rs. 8 Rs. 5, 87, 936 1979-80 65, 448 bags x Rs. 8 Rs. 5, 23, 584 IN the absence of "c" forms for the above sales, the assessing officer assessed the assessee to tax at 10 per cent on the aforesaid turnover. The assessee appealed to the Appellate Assistant commissioner. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner remanded the matter back to the assessing authority to find out whether there is any implied contract for the sale of the above said gunnies and then to fix the turnover of the assessee according to law.

(2.) AGAINST the order of the Appellate Assistant commissioner the assessee preferred a second appeal to the Tribunal. The tribunal inter alia observed thus :- "the Food Corporation of India supplied wheat packed in gunny bags to the appellants. The appellants converted it, into flour, ravai, etc. , packed them in gunny bags and sold them locally and outside the State on consignment basis. For packing the wheat products appellants utilised the same gunny bags in which the wheat was received. No tax was paid by the appellants for the wheat got from Food Corporation of India . A perusal of the record namely invoices, receipts in this case show that the offer and acceptance for the appellants refer only the value of the wheat per bag and no reference is made in any of the correspondences or in the invoice to the value of the gunnies. The sale invoices shows that they have charged only the value of wheat. Simply because there is an instruction to the branch depot that not more than eleven gunny bags should be used it does not mean that there was a contract for the purchase of gunnies. . . . . . . . . . In the present case there is no agreement to sell the packing materials between the Food Corporation of India and the appellants. The packing materials were not the subject of agreement of sale'express'or'implied'. The parties did not intend to sell or buy the packing materials and the packing materials did not form part of the bargain at all, but were used by the sellers as a convenient and cheap vehicle of transport. " So, observing, the Tribunal set aside the order of the appellate Assistant Commissioner.

(3.) IN the light of all the above features and the above referred decisions, we are of the view that the Tribunal has erred in law in coming to the conclusion it reached and we confirm the order of the assessing authority as in our view implied agreement to sell gunnies, could be easily inferred from the available materials and in the light of the above referred to decision and there is no need for any remand as held by the Appellate Assistant commissioner. Accordingly, we allow this revision. No costs. Revision petitions allowed. .