news round up - Taxmann

226 Goods & Services Tax Cases - Reports [Vol. 1
transaction is required to be considered as inter-State sale, which would
not be assessable to sales tax. In support of his submission he has placed
reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of State of
Punjab v. Himachal Government Timber Depot [1985] 58 STC 265 and
argued that according to clause 3 of the agreement dated 1-12-1994 (A-1),
the Haryana Roadways has undertaken to pay CST in addition to fabrication
charges. The submission appears to be that once it is clear between the
parties that the transaction is inter-State, no tax under the PGST would be
leviable. On a query by the Court, learned counsel has not disputed that as
far as the dealer-appellant is concerned, it has to pay 4 per cent tax either
under the PGST or under the CST.
10. We have thoughtfully considered the submissions of the learned
counsel. There are categorical findings recorded by the Tribunal that the
agreement dated 1-12-1994 (A-1) stipulated fabrication of bus bodies on
the chassis which were supplied by the Haryana Roadways to the dealerappellant.
A fixed amount of price was to be realised for each of the bus
body to be fabricated on the chassis and no material for fabrication of bus
body was to be supplied by the Haryana Roadways. Accordingly, the
Tribunal on facts has concluded that there is no other possible construction
except to infer that there was sale within the State of Punjab, which
was liable to tax especially when the dealer-appellant had obtained ‘D’
Forms from Haryana Roadways as is mandatory in case of sale made to
Government department which is chargeable to tax at lower rate.
11. On the issue of inter-State sale, the Tribunal has opined that even if the
contention raised by the dealer-appellant is accepted and it was treated as
an inter-State sale on account of movement of goods from Punjab to
Haryana, still the fact remains that the tax was assessable at the rate of 4
per cent, which has been charged by the respondent State. Accordingly,
the Tribunal has concluded that no useful purpose would be served by
remanding the matter for fresh assessment, especially when the dealerappellant
did not show the transaction to be inter-State sale. Therefore, we
are of the view that there would be no tax effect on the dealer-appellant
in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Accordingly, while
leaving the question of law open, we dismiss the appeal.
12. No other issue has been raised.
13. As a sequel to the aforesaid discussion, the appeal fails and the same
is dismissed.
■■
GOODS & SERVICES TAX CASES ❑ JANUARY 20 - FEBRUARY 4, 2010 ◆ 102
A
B
C
D
E
F
G