STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Vs. THUNGABHADRA INDUSTRIES LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The finding of the Tribunal contained in paragraph 5 of the judgment is as follows :

(2.) The Tribunal also made sample checking of the two sales considered by the revisional authority. One such sale considered is contained in paragraph 14 of the judgment extracted below : "The learned counsel for the appellant even admitted that the transactions in respect of depot transfers are similar to those that are taken as sample and analysed by the revisional authority for determining the dispute. It is necessary to consider how far these two instances justify the conclusion arrived at by the revisional authority. The first instance relates to the depot at Bangalore. M/s. Lakshminarayana Stores, Bangalore, placed an indent on the depot at Bangalore on 23/03/1983, in indent (souda) No. 821 for supply of 50 tins. Annexure B-1 to the objections filed by the appellant is the statement showing receipts, deliveries and closing stocks of Bangalore depot for the month of March, 1983. It shows that on that day there was an opening stock of 325 tins in the depot. There were no receipts on that day from the factory. On 24/03/1983, 600 tins were received and therefore the total stock rose to 925 tins by 24/03/1983. On Ma 24/03/1983, 600 tins were sold. So, the balance again came down to 325. On 25/03/1983, there were no receipts in the depot. But subsequently on March 26127, 1983 and March 28/29, 1983 and 30/03/1983, 600 tins, 1,350 and 600 tins were received in the depot from the factory. Thus M/s. Lakshminarayana Stores which has indented for 50 tins on 23/03/1983, actually purchased the indented goods on 31/03/1983 under bill No. 1633. Thus it could be seen that there was sufficient stock in the Bangalore depot on 23/03/1983, on which day M/s. Lakshminarayana Stores, Bangalore, indented for supply of 50 tins. Even on the subsequent dates till 31/03/1983, on which day M/s. Lakshminarayana Stores actually paid the cost of the indented goods and took delivery, there were sufficient stocks. So simply because the depot had communicated the soudas to the factory, it cannot be said that the despatches made by the factory to the depot after receipt of the souda is intended to be appropriated towards the order placed by M/s. Lakshminarayana Stores. Apart from that the actual deliveries are made by the company long after the indents at the convenience of the wholesaler on payment of cash. So the movement of goods from the factory cannot be said to have any nexus with any particular indent. It is also clear that the goods are sent in truck-loads at regular intervals having regard to the requirements of each depot as each depot has specified limits of storing capacities."

(3.) A similar treatment of the other transaction is given in another paragraph 14 at page 7 in the same way as the wholesale transaction in favour of M/s. Lakshminarayana Stores, Bangalore. This is how the transactions are being conducted. There was no movement of specific goods from the factory to the wholesalers in pursuance of any prior order being placed by the wholesalers on the depots as indented by the wholesalers.