Jurisprudentiol – Tuesday's cases

By Vijay Kumar

Legal Corner Icon — the image was hosted by the publisher and was not captured.Central Sales Tax

Goods transported to outside State Depots for sale on agreement - No interference on question of fact found by Tribunal - transactions in question were inter-State sales taxable under Central Act. - Supreme Court

MERELY because the branch office could also effect supplies directly to some of the bulk consumers, it cannot be said that all supplies that are made to branch offices are not pursuant to the Sales Agreement and letter of allocation. A close reading of the clauses would clearly indicate that the parties have agreed to discharge certain obligations cast on them under the agreement. xxxxx It is because of these covenants, the assessee is obliged to move the goods from its factory to the godown situated in other States to fulfill its part of the contract. Bearing in mind the provisions of Section 3(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and on the facts of the case, the transactions in question were inter-State sales taxable under the Central Act.

Income Tax

Sec 80IB - Activity of converting raw fish into tinned fish is only processing and not manufacturing as essential characteristic does not change; Paying Central Excise duty makes no difference and assessee may claim refund if it is entitled to: Delhi High Court

THE issues before the Bench are - Whether the activity undertaken to convert raw fish into tinned fish is only a ‘processing' or ‘manufacturing' and Whether assessee can claim Sec 80IB benefits on such activity. The other question is - Whether assessee can claim refund if it has been paying Central Excise duty on such activity. The answers to the first two questions were given against the assessee, and the third one went in its favour.

Customs

Tribunal cannot pass futile orders - application filed for stay of operation of Commissioner(A) is of academic interest only as provisional assessments have since been finalised on the basis of view taken by the original authority and affirmed by the appellate authority: CESTAT

ADMITTEDLY, the question of applicability of Rule 9(1)(c) read with section 14 of the Customs Act remains academic for the appellant inasmuch as they have not claimed to have made any subsequent imports. The imports in question are already covered by the final assessments based on the impugned orders. In this scenario, any order of stay will be of no use to either side. The Tribunal cannot pass futile orders.

See our columns Tomorrow for the judgements