http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 9  

PETITIONER: M/S. SAHNEY STEEL AND PRESSWORKS LTD. & ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT10/09/1985

BENCH: PATHAK, R.S. BENCH: PATHAK, R.S. SEN, AMARENDRA NATH (J)

CITATION:  1985 AIR 1754            1985 SCR  Supl. (2) 780  1985 SCC  (4) 173        1985 SCALE  (2)789

ACT:      Central Sales  Tax Act,  1g5, section 3(a) - Interstate Sales -  Goods manufactured  according to the specifications received at the registered office at Hyderabad and all other activities  including   that  of   booking   orders,   sales despatching, billing and receiving of the sale price carried out by  the branch  offices situated  outside the  State  of Andhra Pradesh  - The  transactions  are  inter-State  sales within the  meaning of section 3(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act.

HEADNOTE:      M/s Sahney  Steel and  Press Works  Ltd.  is  a  public limited company  having its registered office and factory at Hyderabad. It  is registered  as a  dealer under the Central Sales Tax  Act, as  well a  under the Andhra Pradesh General Sale Tax  Act. It has branch offices at Amritsar, Bangalore, Bombay,  Calcutta,   Coimbatore  and  Delhi.  They  are  all registered as  dealers under  the Central  Sales Tax Act and under the  related State Sales Tax Acts. 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 customer.  In   the  course  of  its  normal  business,  the registered office  despatches both standard and non-standard goods manufactured at the Hyderabad factory to the branches. The  branch   offices  situate   at  Bombay,   Calcutta  and Coimbatore receive  orders from  customers within  and  from outside the  respective  States  for  the  supply  of  goods conforming to  definite specifications  and drawings.  Those branch  offices   then  advise   the  registered  office  at Hyderabad to  manufacture and  despatch the good. On receipt of such  advice from  the branch, the goods are manufactured 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 by him. Such goods are 781

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 9  

booked to  ’self’ and sent by lorries. The goods received by the branches  from time  to time,  whether standard goods or non-standards goods,  are entered  in the  stock accounts of the branches  and are  kept in  stock by  the  branches  for ultimate delivery  to the  customers. On  the goods reaching the  branches,  they  are  inspected  by  the  customer  and accepted by  them where  the customers  are  local  parties. Where delivery  has to  be effected  to customers  of  other States, the  goods are despatched to them by the branch. The branches raise  bills  and  receive  the  sales  price.  The branches furnish  ’F’ forms  to the  registered office under section 6-A  of the  Central Sales  Tax Act  in the  case of stock transfers to the branches.      The sale  of non-standard goods was Assessed to State & sales Tax  under the  Sales Tax  Acts of  Maharashtra,  West Bengal and  Tamil Nadu.  The Commercial Tax Officer, Company Circle-II, Hyderabad,  however, expressed  the view that the company was  liable to  Central & sales Tax on the turn over of non-standard  goods. For  the assessment  year 1979-80 he made an  assessment order dated May 4, 1981 assessing a turn over of Rs. 1,29,50,248.73 representing what the petitioners claimed to  be stock transfers from the Hyderabad registered office to  the branches outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. By way  of abundant  caution the petitioners had prayed that in the event of their objection to the imposition of Central Sales Tax  being overruled  they should  be allowed  time to collect ’C’  forms from  the various  customers to  whom the branches held  effected sales  and to  submit  them  to  the Commercial Tax Officer. The Commercial Tax Officer, however, did not  grant the  company the  further time  it sought for that purpose.  The Commercial  Tax Officer  has also  issued notices dated  May 2,  1981 seeking  to reopen  the  Central sales Tax  Assessments already completed for the years 1977- 78 and  1978-79. In the original assessments for those years the  Commercial   Tax  Officer  had  excluded  the  disputed transactions relating  to transfers  of  non-standard  goods from the  registered office  to the  branches. Once the Writ Petitions under  Article 32 of the Constitution praying for: (i) to  quash the  assessment order  dated May  4, 1981 made under the  Central Sales  Tax Act  for the  assessment  year 1979-80 and  the consequent  demand of tax in respect of the non-standard goods;  (ii) to  restrain  the  Commercial  Tax Officer  from   reopening  the   past   assessments;   (iii) alternatively, in  the event  of the transactions being held liable  under   the  Central   Sales  Tax   Act,  to  afford opportunity to  the company  to file ’C’ forms to  enable it to avail  of the  concessional rate  of tax  envisaged under section 8(1) of the Central Sales Tax Act and (iv) further 782 alternatively to  quash the assessments made under the local Sales Tax  Acts for  the assessment years 1978-79 onwards in so far  as the  assessments include  the turn  over  of  the aforesaid stock  transfers  transferred  by  the  registered office to its branches.      Dismissing the petition, the Court ^      HELD: 1.1  The sale transactions were inter-state sales in as  much as  they satisfy  the terms  of  clause  (a)  of section 3 of the Central Sales Tax Act. [790 B]      1.2 It  cannot be  said that  the Movement of the goods from   Hyderabad to  the branch  office  was  only  for  the purpose of  enabling the  sale by  the branch office and was not in  the course  of fulfillment  of the contract of sale. Even if the buyer places an order with the branch office and the branch  office communicates the terms and specifications

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 9  

of the orders to the registered office and the branch office itself is  concerned with  the  sales  despatching,  billing receiving of  the sale  price, the   conclusion must be that the order  placed by  the buyer  is an order placed with the Company, and  for the  purpose of  fulfilling that order the manufactured  goods   commence  their   journey   from   the registered office  within the State of Andhra Pradesh to the Branch office outside the State for delivery of the goods to the buyer.  Further, both  the  registered  office  and  the branch office   are offices of the same Company, and what in effect  does  take  place  is  that  the  Company  from  its registered office in Hyderabad takes the goods to its branch office outside the State and arranges to deliver them to the buyer. The  registered  office  and  branch  office  do  not possess  separate   juridical  personalities.  The  question really is  whether  the  movement  of  the  goods  from  the registered office  at Hyderabad  is occasioned  by the order placed by  the buyer  or is an incident of the contract. The answer being  in the affirmative, its movement from the very beginning from  Hyderabad all  the  way  until  delivery  is received by  the buyer  is an  inter-state movement. [787 A- D,F]      1.3 The  fact that  the goods  were despatched  by  the branch office  situated outside  the State of Andhra Pradesh to the  buyer and  not by the registered office at Hyderabad makes no  difference at all. The manufacture of the goods at the Hyderabad  factory and  their movement  thereafter  from Hyderabad to  the branch  office outside  the State  was  an incident of the contract entered 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 783 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 goods are purchased from  the branch  office, it  is not  a sale under which the  goods commenced 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. [787 F-H, 788 A-C]      English Electric  Company of  India Ltd.  v. The Deputy Commercial Tax officer & Ors., [1977] 1 S.C.R. 631; Union of India and  Another v.  K.G. Khosla  and Co. Ltd. and Others, [1979] 43  S.T.C. 457;  Tata Engineering  and Locomotive Co. Ltd. v.  Assistant Commissioner  of Commercial Taxes & Anr., [1970] 26  S.T.C. 354 =[1970] 3 S.C.R. 862; State of Bihar & Anr.,v. Tata  Engineering Locomotive  Co.,  Ltd.  [1971;  27 S.T.C. 127  =[1971] 2  S.C.R. 849  and Balabhagas Hulaschand and another  v.  State  of  Orissa,  [1976]  37  S.T.C.  207 referred to.      [The Court  directed: (i) the Commercial 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;  (ii)  the  petitioner  Company  may  make  an application to  the assessing  authority  for  deleting  the turnover of  sales found  to be  inter-State sales concerned for re-opening  the assessments  made under  the State Sales Tax Acts  and (iii)  if the  application is  made within two

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 9  

months from September 10, 1985, the said assessing authority should entertain the application, notwithstanding any period of limitation  prescribed for  such  a  proceedings  and  to dispose of the claim in accordance with law.]

JUDGMENT:      ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Write Petition No. 7337 of 1981.      (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India).      Y.S. Chitale and D.N. Misra for the Petitioners.      N.C. Talukdar,  M.C. shandare, Miss A. Subhashici, M.N. Shroff and B. Parthasarthi for the Respondents. 784      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      PATHAK, J.  The first  petitioner, M/s Sahney Steel and Press Works  Ltd.(hereinafter referred  to as the Company J, is a public limited company having the 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 Pradesh General Sales Tax Act.      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 and  similar goods. The branches of the company are mainly  engaged in  electing 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 customers.  In  the course  of   its  normal  business,  the  registered  office despatches both standard and non-standard goods manufactured at the  Hyderabad factory  to the  branches. Such  transfers made by  the registered  office to  the branches  at Bombay, Calcutta and  Coimbatore  of  non-standard  goods  form  the subject of  The instant controversy.      According to the petitioner, the branch offices situate at Bombay,  Calcutta 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   offices  then   advise  the registered office  at Hyderabad  to manufacture and despatch the goods.  On receipt of such advice from branch, the goods are manufactured  at the  Hyderabad factory  and  thereafter despatched by  the registered  office to the branches by way of transfer  of stock.  Hie 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  by him.  Such  goods  are  booked  to ’sheaf’ and  sent by  lorries. The  goods  received  by  the branches from  time to  time, whether standard goods or non- standard goods,  are entered  in the  stock accounts  of the branches and  are kept in stock by the branches for ultimate delivery to the customers. On 785 the goods  reaching the  branches, they are inspected by the customers and accepted by them where the customers are local parties. Where  delivery has  to be effected to customers of other States,  the goods  are  despatched  to  them  by  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 9  

branch. The  branches raise  bills  and  receive  the  sales price. The  branches furnish  ’F’ forms  to  the  registered office under  s.6-A of the Central sales Tax Act in the case of stock  transfers to the branches. These are the facts set forth in the writ petition.      It appears  that (the  sale of  non-standard goods  WAS assessed to  State Sales  Tax under  the Sales  Tax Acts  o. Maharashtra, West  Bengal and Tamil Nadu. The Commercial Tax Officer, Company  Circle-II, Hyderabad,  however,  expressed the view that the company was liable to Central Sales Tax on the  turnover   of  non-standard   goods  and  rejected  the contention of  the Company  that the  pertinent turnover was not so  liable. For  the assessment  year 1979-80 he made an assessment order  dated May  4, 1981 assessing a turnover of Rs.1,29,50,248.73 representing  what the petitioners claimed to be  stock transfers  from the Hyderabad registered office to the  branches outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. By way of abundant  caution the  petitioner had  prayed that in the event of  their objection to the imposition of Central Sales Tax being  overruled they  should be allowed time to collect ’C’ forms  from the  various customers  to whom the branches had effected  sales and to submit them to the Commercial Tax Officer. The  Commercial Tax Officer, however, did not grant the Company the further time it sought for that purpose.      The petitioners  states that the Commercial Tax Officer has also  issued notices dated May 2, 1981 seeking to reopen the Central  Sales Tax assessments already completed for the years 1977-78  and 1978-79.  In the original assessments for those years  the Commercial  Tax Officer  had  excluded  the disputed transactions  relating to transfers of non-standard goods from the registered office to the branches.      The petitioners,  therefore, pray  for the  quashing of the assessment  order dated  May  4,  1981  made  under  the Central Sales  Tax Act  for the assessment year 1979-80, and the consequent  demand of  tax, in  so far as the assessment order includes  within the  assessed turnover  the value  of non-standard  goods   transferred  to   the  branches.   The petitioners  also   pray  for   an  order   restraining  the Commercial Tax  Officer from  reopening past assessments tor the purpose  of including  such transfers  in the assessable turnover. Alternatively,  the petitioners  pray that  in the event 786 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 envisaged under  sub-s.(1) of s.8 read with sub-s.(4) of s.8 of the  Central Sales  Tax Act.  A  further  prayer  in  the alternatives 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.      While making  the assessment  order for  the assessment year 1979-80,  the Commercial  Tax Officer  found  that  the branch offices  of the  company, 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 office 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 9  

specifications received from the customers at the registered office and  factory  at  Hyderabad,  also  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 outside 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.      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 office  could  not  be identified with  transactions  effected  by  the  registered office. The  movement of  the goods  from Hyderabad  to  the branch office, it is 787 said, was  only for  the purpose of enabling the sale by the branch A  office and was not in the course of fulfillment of the contract of sale. We are unable to agree. Even if, as in the present  case, the buyer places an order with the branch office and  the branch  office communicates  the  terms  and specifications of  the orders  to the  registered office and the  branch  office  itself  is  concerned  with  the  sales despatching, billing  and receiving  of the  sale price, the conclusions must be that the order placed by the buyer is an order placed with Company, and for the purpose of fulfilling that order  the manufactured  goods commence  their  Journey from the  registered  office  within  the  State  of  Andhra Pradesh to  the branch office outside the State for delivery of the  goods to the buyer. We must not forget that both the registered office  and the  branch office are offices of the same Company, and what in effect does take place is that the Company from  its registered  office in  Hyderabad takes the goods to  its branch  office outside tile State and arranges to deliver  them to the buyer. The registered office and the branch   office    do   not   possess   separate   juridical personalities. The  question really  is whether the movement of the  goods from  the registered  office at  Hyderabad  is occasioned by  the order  placed  by  the  buyer  or  is  an incident of  the contract.  If it  is so,  as it  appears no doubt to  us, its  movement from  the  very  beginning  from Hyderabad all  the way  until delivery  is received  by  the buyer  is  an  inter-State  movement.  In  English  Electric Company of India Ltd. v. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer & Ors.[1977] 1  S.C.R. 631  this  Court  held  that  when  the movement of  the goods  from one  State  to  another  is  an incident of  the contract  it is  a sale  in the  course  of inter-State sale,  and it does not matter which is the State in which  property in  the goods passes. What is decisive is whether the  sale is  one which  occasions the  movement  of goods from  one State  to another.  It was  also pointed out that the  branches had  no independent  and separate entity, that they  were merely  different agencies, and even where a branch office  sold the  goods to  the buyer  it was  a sale between the  Company and  the buyer. It is true that in that

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 9  

case the goods, on manufacture at the Madras branch factory, were directly despatched to the Bombay buyer at his risk and all prices  were shown  F.O.R. Madras,  and the  goods  were delivered to  the Bombay  buyer at  Bhandup through clearing agents In the instant case, the goods were despatched by the branch office  situated outside  the State of Andhra Pradesh to the  buyer and not by the registered office at Hyderabad. In our  opinion,  that  makes  no  difference  at  all.  The manufacture of  the goods at the Hyderabad factory and their movement thereafter  from Hyderabad  to  the  branch  office outside the State was an incident of the contract 788 entered 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 goods are purchased from the branch office, it is not a sale  under which  the goods commenced 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.      The law  was clarified in Union of India and Another 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 Engineering  and Locomotive  Co.  Ltd.  v. Assistant Commissioner  of Commercial  Taxes Anr.  [1970] 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 requirement 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 with 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 State of Bihar &  Anr. v.  Tata Engineering  &  Locomotive  Co.  Ltd. [1971] 27  S.T.C. 127  = [1971]  2 S.C.R. 849. In that case, the turnover in dispute related to sales made 789 by the  company to  its dealers  of trucks for being sold in the   territories assigned  to  them  under  the  dealership agreements. Each  dealer was assigned an exclusive territory

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 9  

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  purchasers  were required to  remove the  goods from  the State  of Bihar  to other States.  The Court observed that if a contract of said contained a stipulation for such movement, the sale would be an inter-State sale.      Considerable reliance has been placed by the petitioner on  one   of  the  illustrations  given  by  this  Court  in Balabhagas 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 dealer  in  state  X,           agrees to  sell goods  to but  he books  the goods           from state  X to  State Y  in his own name and his           agent in  state Y  receives the goods on behalf of           A. Thereafter  the goods  are delivered  to  B  in           State Y  and if B accepts them a sale takes place.           it will  be seen that in this case the movement of           goods is  neither in pursuance of the agreement to           sell nor  is the  movement occasioned by the sale.           The seller  himself takes the goods of State Y and           sells the goods there. This, is, therefore, purely           ar. internal sale which takes place in State Y and           falls beyond  the purview  of section  3(a) of the           Central Sales  Tax Act  not being  an  inter-State           sale.      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  movement 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  one 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   of sale  or an  incident of that contract that the goods 790 manufactured at  Hyderabad according  to the  specifications stipulated by  the buyer  should be the very goods delivered to him outside the State.      Upon all  these considerations,  we are of opinion that the Commercial  Tax Officer  is right  in holdings  that the sale transactions  were inter-State  sales inasmuch  as they satisfy the  terms of clause (a) of s.3 of the Central Sales Tax Act.      Having held  that the  disputed transactions are inter- State sales,  it is  only appropriate  that  an  opportunity should be  give 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 Commercial 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.  We understand that so far as

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 9  

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.      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  authority 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 accordance with law.      The  writ   petition  is   dismissed  subject   to  the directions set forth above. There is no order as to costs. S.R.                                     Petition dismissed. 791