TATA MOTORS LIMITED versus CENTRAL SALES TAX APPELLATE AUTHORITY & OTHERS

Citation: [2022] 4 S.C.R. 870 · Decided: 21-09-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
870
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 4 S.C.R.
TATA MOTORS LIMITED
v.
CENTRAL SALES TAX APPELLATE AUTHORITY & OTHERS
(Civil Appeal No. 6450 of 2012)
SEPTEMBER 21, 2022
[M. R. SHAH AND KRISHNA MURARI, JJ.]
Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 – s.22(1B) – Finance Act, 2010
– Sales effected through RSO, Vijayawada w.r.t vehicles/buses sold
to APSRTC were in the nature of inter-state sale – Appellant was
thus liable to pay central sales tax to the State of Jharkhand however,
treating the sale as stock transfer, it paid the tax on the aforesaid
transaction to the State of Andhra Pradesh which is not leviable by
it – Central Sales Tax Appellate Authority though found the
transaction to be in the nature of inter-state sale but, passed no
further consequential order directing to adjust the amount of tax
paid on aforesaid transaction against the tax to be paid to the State
of Jharkhand – On appeal, held: By the 2010 Act, s.22(1B) was
inserted to the 1956 Act – Prior to the said insertion of s.22(1B),
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 it to be not due to that State, or direct that State to
transfer the refundable amount to the State to which central sales
tax is due on the same transaction – In the present case, the
transaction is for the period prior to insertion of s.22(1B) to the
1956 Act and the impugned order has been passed by the Appellate
Authority pre-insertion of s.22(1B) to the 1956 Act – Thus, it cannot
be said that it committed any error in not issuing any direction which
now is permissible u/s.22(1B) of the 1956 Act – However, the State
of Andhra Pradesh cannot retain the amount of central sales tax
paid by the appellant on the transaction – Therefore, in line with
s.22(1B), the State of Andhra Pradesh to transfer to the State of
Jharkhand the amount of central sales tax deposited by the appellant
w.r.t the transaction in question, subject to the appellant submitting
the proof of the amount of central sales tax already paid thereon –
State of Jharkhand to adjust the same towards the central sales tax
liability of the appellant on such transaction.
[2022] 4 S.C.R. 870
870
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
871
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6450
of 2012.
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.06.2009 of the Central
Sales Tax Appellate Authority, New Delhi in Appeal No. 330/CST/2008.
Amar Dave, Ms. Nandini Gore, Ms. Neha Khandelwal, Ms. Manvi
Rastogi for M/S. Karanjawala & Co., James P. Thomas,. Rohit Kumar
Singh, Ravi Sagar, Advs. for the Appellant.
N. Venkataraman, ASG, Arijit Prasad, Arunabh Chowdhary, Sr.
Advs., V.C. Bharathi, H. R. Rao, M. K. Maroria, Mrs. Anil Katiyar,
Nishe Rajen Shonker, Mrs. Anu K. Roy, Alim Anvar, Ashish Jha,
Ms. Pragya Baghel, Jayant Mohan, Karma Dorjee, Dechen Wangdi
Lachungpa, Ms. Adya Shree Dutta, Aniruddha Mahadevan Sethi, Abhay
Pratap Singh, Ms. C. K. Sucharita, Milind Kumar, Ms. Deepanwita
Priyanka, M/s. Corporate Law Group, V. N. Raghupathy, Md. Apzal
Ansari, Kamal Mohan Gupta, Sabarish Subramanian, M. Yogesh Kanna,
Siddharath Dharmadhikari, Aaditya A. Pande, Bharat Bagla, B. K. Satija,
Bhakti Vardhan Singh, Gopal Singh, Ashok Kumar Singh, Aravindh S.,
Abbas. B., Mahfooz A. Nazki, Polanki Gowtham, Shaik Mohamad
Haneef, T. Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy, K.V. Girish Chowdary, Ms. Rajeswari
Mukherjee, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
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,
TATA MOTORS LIMITED v. CENTRAL SALES TAX
APPELLATE AUTHORITY & OTHERS
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
872
SUPREME CO
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.