M/S. SAHNEY STEEL PRESS WORKS LTD. & ANR. versus THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER & ORS.

PATHAl(, J, The first petitioner, M/s Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd.(hereinafter referred to as "the Company"), .is a public limited company having its registered office and factory at Hyderabad. The second petitioner, Shri Bhupendra Singh Sahney, is a Director and shareholder of that Company. The company has branches at Amritsar, Bangalore, Bombay, Calcutta, Coimbatore and Delhi. The registered office of the Company at Hyderabad is registered as a dealer under the Central Sales Tax Act as well as under the Andhra Prade&h General Sales Tax Act.

p. 784

The Company is engaged in the manufacture and sale of stampings and laminations made out of steel sheets which are utilised as raw material for making electric motors, transformers anu similar goods. The branches of the company are mainly engaged in effecting sales and looking after the sales promotion and .Liaison work. The Company manufactures (a) standard goods according to the company's own designs and specifications, (b) non-standard goods according to the designs and specifications supplied by customt:!rs. In the course of its normal business, the rt!gistered office despatches both standard and non-standard goods manufactured at the Hyderabad factory to the Branches. Such transfers made the registered office to the branches at Bombay, Calcutta and Coi1nbatore of non-standard goods form the subject of the instant controversy.

p. 784

According to the petitioner, the branch offices situate at ~ombay, Cali.:utta and Coimbatore, which themselves are registered as dealers under the Central Sales Tax Act and under the related State Sales Tax Acts, receive orders from customers within and from outside the respective States for the supply of goods conforming to definite specifications and drawings. Those branch offlces then advise the registered office at Hyderabad to llla.nufacture and despatch the goods. On receipt of such advice from the braq.ch, the goods are manu.factured at the Hyderabad factory and thereafter despatched by the registered office to the branches by way of transfer of stock. While despatching the goods, sometimes intimation is also given by the registered office to the customer concerned about the despatch of the goods to the destination indicated him. Such goods are booked to 'self and sent by lorries. The goods received by the branches from time to time, whether standard goods or non-standard goods, ~re entered in the stock accounts of the branches and are kept in stock by tl1e branches for ultimate delivery to the customers. On the goods reaching the branches, they are inspected customers and accepted by them where the customers are parties. Where delivery has to be effected to customers States, the goods are despatched to them by the branch. branches raise bills and receive the sales price. The furnish 'F' forms to the registered office under s.6-A Central Sales Tax Act in the case of stock transfers ·branches. These are the facts set forth in the writ petition.

pp. 784–785, margin D

It appears that (the sale of non-standard goods was to State Sales Tax under the Sales Tax Acts of Maharashtra, Bengal and Tamil Nadu. The ColIIDlercial Tax Officer, Circle-II, Hyderabad, however, expressed the view company was . liable to C.entral Sales Tax on the turnover non-standard goods and rejected the contention of the that the pertinent turnover was not ·so liable. For the assessment year 1979-80 he made an assessment order dated May assessin;; a turnover of Rs.1,29,50,248.73 representing what petitioners claimed to be stock transfers from the Hyderabad registered office to the ·branches outside the State of Pradesh. By way of abundant caution the petitioner had prayed that in the event of their objection to the imposition of Sales Tax being overruled they should be allowed time to 'C' forms from the various customers to whom the branches had effected sales and to submit them to the ColIIDlercial Tax The Commercial Tax Officer, however, did not grant the the further time it sought for that purpose.

p. 785, margin B

The petitioners states that the Commercial ·Tax Officer also issued notices datedMay 2, 1981 seeking to reopen Central Sales Tax assessments already completed for the 1977-78 and 1978-79. In the original assessments for those the Commercial Tax Officer had excluded the disputed transactions relating to transfers of non-standard goods from the registered office to the branches.

p. 785, margin C

The petitioners, therefore, pray for the quashing assessment Order dated May 4, 1981 made under the Central Tax Act for the assessment year 1979-80, and the consequent demand of tax, in so far as the assessment order includes the assessed turnover the value of non-standard goods transferred to the branches. The petitioners .also pray for an order re~train­ ing the Commercial Tax Officer from reopening past assessments for the purpose of including such transfers in the assessable turunover. Alternatively, the petitioners pray that in the of the transactions being held liable to Central Sales Tax an opportunity should be given to the Company to file 'C' forms to enable it to avail of the concessional rate of tax envisage.d under sub-s.(l) of s.8 read with sub-s.(4) of s.8 of the Central Sales Tax Act. A further prayer in the alternative is that the assessment made under the local Sales Tax Acts from the assessment year 1978-79 onwards, in so far as the assessments include the turnover of the aforesaid stock transfers transferred by the registered office to the branches should be quashed.

pp. 785–786, margin F

While making the assessment order for the assessment year 1979-80, .the Commercial Tax Officer found that the branch offices of the ccmpany, after procuring orders for the supply of goods with definite specifications and drawings advised the registered office at Hyderabad to manufacture and supply the goods in accordance therewith. After the goods were so manufactured in the factory at Hyderabad, the registered off ice despatched the goods to the branches. The goods were collected by the branch offices and despatched to various customers according to the orders received earlier. The Commercial Tax Officer also found that except for the manufacture of goods according to the specifications received from the customers at the registered office and factory at Hyderabad, all other activities including that of booking orders, sales despatching, billing and receiving of the sale price were being carried on by the branch offices situated O'!tside the. State of Andhra Pradesh. In the opinion of the Commercial Tax Officer the movement of the goods from Hyderabad to the stations outside the State was an incident of the contract incorporated in the specific orders procured by the branch offices, and therefore the ·transactions were inter-state sales within the termS of sub-s.(a) of s.3 of the Central Sales Tax Act.

p. 786

The petitioners challenge the finding of the Commercial Tax Officer that the transactions in question constitute inter-State sales. The petitioner contend that when the registered office of the company at Hyderabad despatched the manufactured goods to its branch office it .was merely a transfer of stock from the registered office to the branch office, and thereafter the movement of the goods started from the branch office to the buyer. It is urged that the registered office and the branch office were separately registered as dealers under the Sales Tax law and transactions effected by the branch off ice could not be identified with transactions effected by the registered office. The movement of the goods from Hyderabad to the branch office, it is sai'.i, was only for the purpose of enabling the sale office and was not in the course of fulfilment of sale. are unable to agiee. Even if, as in the the buyer places an order with the branch off ice offic~ conmiunicates the terms and specifications of the registered office and the branch office itself with the sales despatching, billing and receiving _price, the conclusions must be that the order placed is an order placed with Company, and for the purpose ing that order the manufactured goods commence their the registered office within the State. of Andhra Pradesh branch office outside the State for delivery of the buyer. We must not forget that both the registered branch office are offices of the same Company, and what does take place is that the Company from its registered Hyderabad ta~es the goods to its branch office outside arul arranges to deliver them to the buyer. The registered and the branch office do not possess separate juridical ities. The question really is whether the movement from the registered office at Hyderabad is occasioned order placed by the buyer or is an incident of the it is so, as it appears no doubt to us, its movement very beginning from Hyderabad all the way until received by the buyer is an inter-State movement. !Uectric Company of India Ltd. v. 'lbe Deputy Offieer Ors. [1977] l s.c.R. 631 this. Court held movement of the goods from one_ State. to another is the contract it is a sale in the course of inter-State it does not matter which is the State in which goods passes. What is decisive is whether the sale occasions the movement of goods from one State to also pointed out that the branches had no separate entity, that they were merely· different even where· a branch office sold the goods to the sale between the Company and the buyer. ·It is true case the goods, on manufa~ture at the Madras branch directly despatched to the Bombay buyer at his prices were shown F.O.R. Madras, and the goods were the llombay buyer at Bhandup through clearing instant case, the goods were despatched by the situated outside the State of Andhra Pradesh to the by the registered office at Hyderabad. In our opinion, no differerice at all. The manufacture of the goods bad factory and their movement thereafter from Hyderabad branch office outside the State was an incident ntered into with the buyer, for it was intended that the same goods should be delivered by the branch office to the buyer. There was no break in the movement of the goods. The branch office merely acted as a conduit through which the goods passed on their way to the buyer. It would have been a different matter if the particular goods had been despatched by the registered office at Hyderabad to the branch office outside the State for sale in the open market and without reference to any order placed by the buyer. In such a case if the goo<ls are purchased from the branch office, it is not a sale under which the.goods coannenced their movement from Hyderabad. It is a sale where the goods moved merely from the branch office to the buyer. The movement of the goods from the registered office at Hyderabad to the branch office outside the State cannot be regarded as an incident of the •sale made to the buyer.

pp. 786–788, margin F

The law was clarified in Union of India and Aoother v. K.G. Khosla and Co. Ltd. and Others. (1979) 43 S.T.C. 457, where this Court observed that a sale would be an inter-State sale even if the contract of sale does not itself provide for the movement of goods from one State to another, provided, however, that such movement was the result of a covenant in the contract of sale or was in incident of that contract. Two cases on opposite sides of the line were considered by this Court in K.G. Khosla and Co. Ltd. (supra). In Tata Engfoeering and Locomotive Co. Ltd. v. Assistant Comnissioner of Comercial Taxes Anr. [1970 j 26 S.T.C. 354 [1970] 3 S.C.R. 862, the appellant carried on the business of manufacturing trucks in Jamshedpur in the State of Bihar. The sales office of the appellant in Bombay used to instruct the Jamshedpur factory to transfer stocks of vehicles to the stock-yards in various States after taking into account the production schedule and requirements of customers in different States. The stocks available in the stock-yards were distributed from time to time. to dealers. The transfer of the vehicles from the factory to the various stock-yards was a continuous process and was not related to the require\n.ent of any particular customer. Until an appropriation of the vehicle was made by the stock-yard incharge against a contract of sale out of the stocks available w:i.th him it was open to the appellant to allot any vehicle to any purchaser or even to transfer the vehicles from the stock-yard in the State to a stock-yard in another State. It was held on the facts that the sale by the appellant to a purchaser from its stock-yard was not an inter-State sale. On the other side of the line is St.ate of Bi.bar Anr. v. Tata ing & Locomotive eo. Ltd. [1971J 27 s.T.c. 127 [1971] 2 s.c.R. 849. In that case, the turnover in dispute related to sales made

p. 788, margin C

the company to its dealers of trucks for being sold in the territo!'ies assigned to them under the dealership agreements. Each dealer was assigned an exclusive territory and_ under the agreement between the dealers and the company, they had to place their indents, pay the price of the goods to be purchased and obtain delivery orders from the Bombay office of the company. In pursuance of such delivery orders trucks used to be delivered in the State of Bihar to be taken over tO the territories assigned to the dealers. Under the terms of the contracts of sale the purchaser~ were required to remove. the goods from the State of Bihar to other States. The Court observed· that if a contract of sale contained a stipulation for such movement, the sale would be an inter-State sale. C

p. 789

Considerable reliance has been placed by the petitioner on one of the illustrations given by this Court in Hulaschand and Another v. State of Orissa [1976] 37 S.T.C. 207, where Case No.II was set out as follows:- "Case No.II. - A, who is a d~aler in State X, agrees to sell goods to B but he books the goods trom State X to State U his own name and his agent in State rec:eives the goods on behalf of A. Thereafter the goods are deliv~red to in State and if B accepcs them a sale takes -place. It will be seen that in this case the movement of goods is neither in pursuance of E the agreement to sell nor is the movement occasioned by the sale. The seller himself takes the goods of State sells the goods there. This, is, therefore, purely an internal salewhich takes place in State Y and falls beyond the purview of section 3(a) of the Centl'.'al Sales Tax Act not being an inter-State

p. 789

sale."

p. 789

It is not clear from this illustration whether the goods were particular and specific goods earmarked for delivery to the buyer when they commenced their movement• from State X. Apparently not> because it is pointed out that the movement.of the goods was neither in pursuance of the agreement to sell nor ·was the move- ~nt occasioned by the sale. The case is distinguishable from the present one where particular goods were manufactured in Hyderabad in satisfaction of an order placed by the buyer who desired delivery outside the State. The goods moved from the registered office at Hyderabad as the result of a covenant in the contract H of sale or an incident of that contract that the goods manufactured at Hyderabad according to the specifications stipulated by the buyer should be the very goods delivered to him outside the State.

pp. 789–790

Upon all these considerations, we are of opinion that the Commercial Tax Officer is right in holding that the sale transactions were inter-State sales inasmuch as they satisfy the terms of caluse (a) of s.3 of the Central Sales Tax Act.

p. 790

Having held that the disputed transactions are inter-State sales, it is only appropriate that an opportunity should be given to the Company to collect 'C' Forms from the buyers for the purpose of obtaining relief under sub-s.(l) of s.8 read with sub-s.(4) of s.8 of the Central Sales Tax Act. The question whether the transactions could be described as inter-State sales was in doubt all along, and it is only now that the doubt can be said to have been finally resolved. Accordingly we direct the Comnercial Tax Officer to afford a reasonable opportunity to the Company to collect 'C' Forms and furnish .them to the assessing authority before making an assessment against the Company in respect of such transactions. understand that so far as the turnover for the assessment year 1979-80 _ is concerned, the assessment order has been set aside in appeal and the case has been remanded to the assessing authority for granting sufficient time to the Company to file the · 'C' Forms in order to enable it to avail of the concessional rate of tax.

p. 790, margin B

The petitioners have prayed for the further relief that as the aforesaid transactions have been held to be inter-State· sales their inclusion in the assessments made under the corresponding State Sales Act should be deleted. We give liberty to the petitioner Company to make an application to the assessing authori ty concerned for the grant of such relief, and if the application is made within two months from 10.9.85 we direct the said assessing authority to entertain the application, notwithstanding any period of limitation prescribed for such a proceeding and to dispose of the claim in aqcordance with law.

p. 790, margin D

The writ petition is dismissed .subject to the directions set forth above. There is no order as to costs. S.R. Petition dismissed.

p. 790, margin D