Supreme Court of India
TATA MOTORS LIMITED versus CENTRAL SALES TAX APPELLATE AUTHORITY & OTHERS on 21 September 2022
870
SUPREME COURT REPORTS[2022] 4 S.C.R. 870
[2022] 4 S.C.R.
TATA MOTORS LIMITED
A
v.
CENTRAL SALES TAX APPELLATE AUTHORITY & OTHERS(Civil Appeal No. 6450 of 2012)
BSEPTEMBER 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 soldto APSRTC were in the nature of inter-state sale – Appellant wasCthus liable to pay central sales tax to the State of Jharkhand however,treating the sale as stock transfer, it paid the tax on the aforesaidtransaction to the State of Andhra Pradesh which is not leviable byit – Central Sales Tax Appellate Authority though found thetransaction to be in the nature of inter-state sale but, passed noDfurther consequential order directing to adjust the amount of taxpaid on aforesaid transaction against the tax to be paid to the Stateof Jharkhand – On appeal, held: By the 2010 Act, s.22(1B) wasinserted to the 1956 Act – Prior to the said insertion of s.22(1B),there was no provision by which the Appellate Authority could haveissued directions for refund of the tax collected by the State whichEhas been held by it to be not due to that State, or direct that State totransfer the refundable amount to the State to which central salestax is due on the same transaction – In the present case, thetransaction is for the period prior to insertion of s.22(1B) to the1956 Act and the impugned order has been passed by the AppellateFAuthority pre-insertion of s.22(1B) to the 1956 Act – Thus, it cannotbe said that it committed any error in not issuing any direction whichnow is permissible u/s.22(1B) of the 1956 Act – However, the Stateof Andhra Pradesh cannot retain the amount of central sales taxpaid by the appellant on the transaction – Therefore, in line withs.22(1B), the State of Andhra Pradesh to transfer to the State ofGJharkhand the amount of central sales tax deposited by the appellantw.r.t the transaction in question, subject to the appellant submittingthe proof of the amount of central sales tax already paid thereon –State of Jharkhand to adjust the same towards the central sales taxliability of the appellant on such transaction.H
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6450of 2012.
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.06.2009 of the CentralSales Tax Appellate Authority, New Delhi in Appeal No. 330/CST/2008.
Amar Dave, Ms. Nandini Gore, Ms. Neha Khandelwal, Ms. ManviRastogi for M/S. Karanjawala & Co., James P. Thomas,. Rohit KumarSingh, 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 WangdiLachungpa, Ms. Adya Shree Dutta, Aniruddha Mahadevan Sethi, AbhayPratap Singh, Ms. C. K. Sucharita, Milind Kumar, Ms. DeepanwitaPriyanka, M/s. Corporate Law Group, V. N. Raghupathy, Md. ApzalAnsari, 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 MohamadHaneef, T. Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy, K.V. Girish Chowdary, Ms. RajeswariMukherjee, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
M. R. SHAH, J.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
M. R. SHAH, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order dated29.06.2009 passed by the Central Sales Tax Appellate Authority, NewDelhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Appellate Authority’) in AppealNo. 330/CST/2008, by which, though the transaction/sales of buseseffected through RSO, Vijayawada sold to Andhra Pradesh State RoadTransport Corporation (for short, ‘APSRTC’) were found to be in thenature of inter-state, no further consequential order has been passed bythe Appellate Authority directing to adjust the amount of tax paid on theaforesaid transaction against the tax to be paid to the State of Jharkhand,the original appellant – Tata Motors Limited has preferred the presentappeal.
2. We have heard Shri Amar Dave, learned counsel appearing onbehalf of the appellant, Shri Mahfooz A. Nazki, learned counsel appearingon behalf of the State of Andhra Pradesh, Shri Arunabh Chowdhary, A
B
CD
E
F
G
H
Alearned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the State of Jharkhandand Shri N. Venkataraman, learned Additional Solicitor General of Indiaalong with Shri Arijit Prasad, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalfof the Union of India.
3. At the outset, it is required to be noted and it is not in disputeBthat with respect to transaction in question, namely, sales effected throughRSO, Vijayawada with respect to vehicles/buses sold to APSRTC, thesale/s is/are found to be in the nature of inter-state sale/s. In that viewof the matter, the appellant – Tata Motors Limited was liable to paycentral sales tax to the State of Jharkhand. However, treating the sale asstock transfer, the appellant/its representative had paid the tax on theCaforesaid transaction to the State of Andhra Pradesh which is not leviableby the State of Andhra Pradesh. Therefore, the amount of central salestax recovered by the State of Andhra Pradesh is required to be transferredto the State of Jharkhand and the same is required to be adjusted towardsthe amount of tax to be paid to the State of Jharkhand.D
4. At this stage, it is required to be noted that prior to insertion ofSection 22(1B) to the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referredto as the ‘Act 1956’), there was no provision by which the AppellateAuthority could have issued directions for refund of the tax collected bythe State which has been held by the Appellate Authority to be not dueEto that State, or alternatively, direct that State to transfer the refundableamount to the State to which central sales tax is due on the sametransaction. However, by the Finance Act, 2010, Section 22(1B) hasbeen inserted to Act 1956, which reads as under:
“Section 22(1B) – The Authority may issue direction for refundFof tax collected by a State which has been held by the Authorityto be not due to that State, or alternatively, direct that State totransfer the refundable amount to the State to which central salestax is due on the same transaction.
Provided that the amount of tax directed to be refunded by aGState shall not exceed the amount of central sales tax payable bythe appellant on the same transaction.”
4.1 It is required to be noted that in the present case the transactionis for the period prior to insertion of Section 22(1B) to the Act 1956 andthe impugned order has been passed by the Appellate Authority pre-insertion of Section 22(1B) to the Act 1956. Therefore, as such, it cannotH
be said that the Appellate Authority has committed any error in not issuingany direction which now is permissible under Section 22(1B) of the Act1956.
5. However, at the same time, the State of Andhra Pradesh cannotretain the amount of central sales tax paid by the appellant on thetransaction of sale effected through RSO, Vijayawada with respect tovehicles/buses sold to APSRTC. Therefore, in line with Section 22(1B)of the Act 1956, the State of Andhra Pradesh is directed to transfer tothe State of Jharkhand the amount of central sales tax deposited by theappellant with the State of Andhra Pradesh with respect to transactionin question, however, subject to the appellant submitting the proof of theamount 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. Afterdue verification, the amount of central sales tax so paid by the appellantwith respect to the aforesaid transaction be transferred to the State ofJharkhand immediately on such verification and the State of Jharkhandis directed to adjust the same towards the central sales tax liability of theappellant on such transaction, namely, sales effected through RSO,Vijayawada with respect to vehicles/buses sold to APSRTC which arefound to be in the nature of inter-state sale. The aforesaid exercise shallbe completed within a period of three months from today.
6. The present appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
Divya Pandey(Assisted by : Deepak Panwar, LCRA)
Appeal disposed of.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H