Tata Motors Limited Versus Central Sales Tax Appellate Authority & Others

Tata Motors Limited Versus Central Sales Tax Appellate Authority & Others

Landmark Cases of India / सुप्रीम कोर्ट के ऐतिहासिक फैसले


1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6450 OF 2012
Tata Motors Limited …Appellant
 Versus
Central Sales Tax Appellate Authority & Others …Respondents
J U D G M E N T
M.R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order dated
29.06.2009 passed by the Central Sales Tax Appellate Authority, New Delhi
(hereinafter referred to as the ‘Appellate Authority’) in Appeal No.
330/CST/2008, by which, though the transaction/sales of buses effected
through RSO, Vijayawada sold to Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport
Corporation (for short, ‘APSRTC’) were found to be in the nature of inter-state,
no further consequential order has been passed by the Appellate Authority
directing to adjust the amount of tax paid on the aforesaid transaction against
the tax to be paid to the State of Jharkhand, the original appellant – Tata
Motors Limited has preferred the present appeal.
2. We have heard Shri Amar Dave, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the appellant, Shri Mahfooz A. Nazki, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the State of Andhra Pradesh, Shri Arunabh Chowdhary, learned Senior
Advocate appearing on behalf of the State of Jharkhand and Shri N.
2
Venkataraman, learned Additional Solicitor General of India along with Shri
Arijit Prasad, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the Union of
India.
3. At the outset, it is required to be noted and it is not in dispute that with
respect to transaction in question, namely, sales effected through RSO,
Vijayawada with respect to vehicles/buses sold to APSRTC, the sale/s is/are
found to be in the nature of inter-state sale/s. In that view of the matter, the
appellant – Tata Motors Limited was liable to pay central sales tax to the State
of Jharkhand. However, treating the sale as stock transfer, the appellant/its
representative had paid the tax on the aforesaid transaction to the State of
Andhra Pradesh which is not leviable by the State of Andhra Pradesh.
Therefore, the amount of central sales tax recovered by the State of Andhra
Pradesh is required to be transferred to the State of Jharkhand and the same
is required to be adjusted towards the amount of tax to be paid to the State of
Jharkhand.
4. At this stage, it is required to be noted that prior to insertion of Section
22(1B) to the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act
1956’), there was no provision by which the Appellate Authority could have
issued directions for refund of the tax collected by the State which has been
held by the Appellate Authority to be not due to that State, or alternatively,
direct that State to transfer the refundable amount to the State to which central
sales tax is due on the same transaction. However, by the Finance Act, 2010,
3
Section 22(1B) has been inserted to Act 1956, which reads as under:
“Section 22(1B) – The Authority may issue direction for refund of tax
collected by a State which has been held by the Authority to be not
due to that State, or alternatively, direct that State to transfer the
refundable amount to the State to which central sales tax is due on
the same transaction.
Provided that the amount of tax directed to be refunded by a State
shall not exceed the amount of central sales tax payable by the
appellant on the same transaction.”
4.1 It is required to be noted that in the present case the transaction is for
the period prior to insertion of Section 22(1B) to the Act 1956 and the
impugned order has been passed by the Appellate Authority pre-insertion of
Section 22(1B) to the Act 1956. Therefore, as such, it cannot be said that the
Appellate Authority has committed any error in not issuing any direction which
now is permissible under Section 22(1B) of the Act 1956.
5. However, at the same time, the State of Andhra Pradesh cannot retain
the amount of central sales tax paid by the appellant on the transaction of sale
effected through RSO, Vijayawada with respect to vehicles/buses sold to
APSRTC. Therefore, in line with Section 22(1B) of the Act 1956, the State of
Andhra Pradesh is directed to transfer to the State of Jharkhand the amount of
central sales tax deposited by the appellant with the State of Andhra Pradesh
with respect to transaction in question, however, subject to the appellant
submitting the proof of the amount of central sales tax already paid on the
transaction in question, namely, sales effected through RSO, Vijayawada with
respect to vehicles/buses sold to APSRTC treating the same as stock transfer
sale. After due verification, the amount of central sales tax so paid by the
4
appellant with respect to the aforesaid transaction be transferred to the State
of Jharkhand immediately on such verification and the State of Jharkhand is
directed to adjust the same towards the central sales tax liability of the
appellant on such transaction, namely, sales effected through RSO,
Vijayawada with respect to vehicles/buses sold to APSRTC which are found to
be in the nature of inter-state sale. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed
within a period of three months from today.
6. The present appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
…………………………………..J.
[M.R. SHAH]
…………………………………...J.
[KRISHNA MURARI]
NEW DELHI;
SEPTEMBER 21, 2022.
5
ITEM NO.1501 COURT NO.8 SECTION XVII
(FOR JUDGMENT)
 S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Civil Appeal No(s). 6450/2012
TATA MOTORS LTD. Appellant(s)
 VERSUS
CENTRAL SALES TAX APPELLATE AUTHORITY. & ORS. Respondent(s)
Date : 21-09-2022 This appeal was called on for pronouncement of
judgment today.
For Appellant(s) Mr. Amar Dave, Adv.
Ms. Nandini Gore, Adv.
Ms. Neha Khandelwal, Adv.
Ms. Manvi Rastogi, Adv.
M/S. Karanjawala & Co., AOR

For Respondent(s) Mr. Nishe Rajan Shonker, Adv.
Mrs. Anu K. Joy, Adv.
Mr. Alim Anvar, Adv.
Mr. Abraham C. Mathews, Adv.
Mrs. Anil Katiyar, AOR
Ms. Pragya Baghel, Adv.
 Mr. Jayant Mohan, AOR
 Mr. Abhay Pratap Singh, AOR
Mr. K.S. Kulkarni, Sr. Adv.
Mr. S. Dhanjay Reddy, Adv.
Mr. Hitesh Kumar Sharma, Adv.
Mr. T.Veera Reddy, Adv.
Mr. T.N. Rama Rao, Adv.
M/s. S. Sandhya Rao, Adv.
 Ms. C. K. Sucharita, AOR
 Mr. Milind Kumar, AOR
 Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, AOR
 Mr. Nishe Rajen Shonker, AOR
 M/S. Corporate Law Group, AOR
6
 Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR
 Mr. Kamal Mohan Gupta, AOR
 Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna, AOR
 Mr. T. S. Sabarish, AOR
 Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR
 Mr. B. K. Satija, AOR
Mr. Pukhramban Ramesh Kumar, AOR
Mr. Karun Sharma, Adv.
Ms. Anupam Ngangom, Adv.
Mr. Wahengbam Immanuel Meitie, Adv.
 Mr. Bhakti Vardhan Singh, AOR
 Mr. Gopal Singh, AOR
 Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, AOR
 Mr. Aravindh S., AOR
Mr. Abbas. B, Adv.
Mr. G.S. Makker, AOR
Mr. Mahfooz A. Nazki, AOR
Mr. Polanki Gowtham, Adv.
Mr. Shaik Mohamad Haneef, Adv.
Mr. T. Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy, Adv.
Mr. K.V. Girish Chowdary, Adv.
Ms. Rajeswari Mukherjee, Adv.

Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.R. Shah pronounced the reportable
judgment of the Bench comprising His Lordship and Hon’ble Mr.
Justice Krishna Murari.
The appeal is disposed of in terms of the signed reportable
judgment. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
 (NISHA KHULBEY) (NISHA TRIPATHI)
SENIOR PERSONAL ASSISTANT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
(signed reportable judgment is placed on the file)

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

100 Questions on Indian Constitution for UPSC 2020 Pre Exam

संविधान की प्रमुख विशेषताओं का उल्लेख | Characteristics of the Constitution of India

भारतीय संविधान से संबंधित 100 महत्वपूर्ण प्रश्न उतर