Judgment:
D. Biswas, J.
1. Heard Mr. G.K. Joshi, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. R.K. Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B.J. Talukdar, learned Government Advocate, Assam.
2. This petition has been filed challenging the common order dated 30.1.1997 passed on revision by the Joint Commissioner of Taxes, Asam, Guwahati under Section 36(2) of the Asam General Sales TaxAct, 1993 read with Section 74(3)(b) of the said Act and Section 20(2) of the Asam Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1956 for the period ending 30.9.1991, 31.3.1992, 30.9.1992, 31.3.1993 and 30.6.1993 upholding the orders of the assessment dated 10.5.1994 passed under Section 9(3) of the Assam Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1956 by the Superintendent of Taxes, Unit-C, Circle-5, Guwahati in respect of the above return periods.
3. The writ petitioner M/s Universal Luggage . is a registered dealer under the Assam Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1956 and the Central Sales Tax Act. For the period mentioned above, the petitioner submitted returns showing the inter-state sale of goods to M/s Aristocrat Marketing Ltd. a sister concern. The claim was rejected by the Assessing Officer by the impugned assessment order dated 10.5.1994 treating the transaction as local sale on the ground that there was no agreement for dispatch of the goods outside the state. Besides, no C-Form was submitted by the dealer and that M/s Aristocrat Marketing Limited had entered the purchases in their stock register.
4. The Assessing Officer recorded the following observations :
(1) Goods are sold to M/s Aristocrat Marketing Ltd. Rehaban, Ghy (a sister concern of the dealer) by adding 6.7% freight, plus local tax as per rate a vouchers.
(2) There are differences in a/cs on goods received. It is seen in A(i), A(ii) & B(ii) noted above.
(3) Other receipt B(ii) are not supported by tax-paid vouchers.
(4) Sales Returned C(i) are not exhibited in closing stocks and stock a/cs
(5) Despatches to other Depots (as per statement of the dealer) are shown as sales B(v).
And came to the conclusion that return is not correct and complete in various respects, including non-furnishing of C-Forms. The terms and conditions reached between the parties for treating the transaction as sales under CST Act, 1956 has not been filed. The Assessing Officer raised demand of tax at Rs. 6,22,941 and interest at Rs. 2,15,787 by the impugned assessment.
5. The Joint Commissioner of Taxes dismissed the revision petition upholding the findings of the Assessing Officer in a routine manner without giving reason for its finding.
6. The two essential ingredients of Inter-State trade or commerce under the Central Sales Tax Act are - (i) movement of goods from on State to another, and (ii) transfer of title of goods supported by documents during movement from one State to another. In the instant case, the revenue has no disputed that the goods were moved from the State of Assam to other States and that the documents in support thereof were produced. Whether any inter-state sale or intra-state sale, the decision will have to be taken having regard to the two points and the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The sale in question was made to M/s Aristocrat Marketing Limited with entries in the stock register and proper account of sales and purchases were furnished. Since stock book has been maintained by the petitioner firm, it cannot be deemed to be local sale as defined in Section 3 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. C-Forms are not the parameters for deciding the nature of sale, i.e., whether local or inter-state sale. Therefore, non-furnishing of C-Forms cannot be a ground for rejecting the claim of inter-state sale. The decision has to be taken as per provisions of Section 3 of the Central Sales Tax Act only with variation in the rate of taxes depending whether C-Form is submitted or not.
7. It appears that the Assessing Officer did not take into consideration the above factors while passing the impugned order of assessment. The revisional authority fell in error in not recording the reason for refusing to entertain the submission of the petitioner firm and passed the impugned order dismissing the revision petition.
8. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of the Assessing Officer and of the revisional authority are hereby quashed and the matter is remitted back to the Assessing Officer for disposal afresh in accordance with the provisions of law. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of.
No costs.