SURAJMULL GOUTI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the assessee challenges the order passed by the Tribunal in VAT Second Appeal Nos. 38 to 41 of 2011 dated 14th August 2012. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee submits that the appeal raises substantial questions of law. It is his submission that the transactions in question would not attract the liability to pay taxes and particularly on inter -State sale. He invited our attention to the definition of the term "inter -State sale" in section 3(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. It is submitted that the deeming fiction comes into play if the sale or purchase of goods takes place in the course of inter -State trade or commerce, if the sale or purchase occasions the movement of goods from one State to another or is effected by a transfer of documents of title to the goods during their movement from one State to another.

(2.) RELIANCE is placed on the judgment of the honourable Supreme Court in the case of Balabhagas Hulaschand v. State of Orissa reported in : [1976] 37 STC 207 (SC) and in the case of Saraswathi Agencies v. Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Main Bench), Chennai reported in : [2009] 21 VST 200 (Mad).

(3.) WE are afraid that we cannot accept this contention and are unable to agree with the assessee's counsel. Admitted facts in this case would show that there is neither any inter -state sale nor the view taken can be perverse. The Tribunal in paragraph 11 of the order under challenge noted the admitted facts. Upon perusal of the record and assessment order, the Tribunal found that the sales effected by the appellant were not stray transactions, They were bulk sales and volume was more than Rs. 3,00,000 per transaction. During cross -checking the stand of the assessee was that the gold was a precious metal and high value commodity. The transportation is generally not followed and therefore delivery in most of the cases is personally taken. Yet, the Tribunal found that the assessing authority confirmed by cross -checking the movement of the goods from Maharashtra to other States, the invoices drawn and the other documents would demonstrate that all the goods moved out of the State and that the party is outside Maharashtra. The assessee's counsel has shown one of the invoices and which was raised on the party in Hardoi, Uttar Pradesh. If the goods are stated as sold at the shelf of the shop or establishment of the appellant and the person to whom it has been sold is supposed to have dealt with them further, then, it would not be the assessee's responsibility to prove the same. This is how the bulk and volume of each sale, the movement of the goods from Maharashtra to other State has been established. Thus, these are not stray sales to a tourist from out of the State or unknown customers but to known customers against payment. Such customers have deputed their representatives to take delivery of the goods. The application of the settled tests to the facts of the present case as can be seen in paragraph 12 of the impugned order is correct.