Case Details: State Of Maharashtra Versus Beardsell Ltd. (2025) 36 Centax 83 (Tri.-Del)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Justice Dilip Gupta, President & Shri P.V. Subba Rao, Member (T)
- Ms Rama Ahluwalia, Advocate, for the Appellant.
- S/Shri N.V. Tapare & Sandeep D. Ghaterao, Advocates, for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The assessee moved goods from its manufacturing unit to branch offices in other States, and in earlier proceedings under the Customs Act, 1962, the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) had found that such movement resulted from pre-existing orders placed by customers at the branch offices. In proceedings under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, the assessing officer held that the assessee could not take a plea contrary to the stand taken before CESTAT and concluded that the transaction constituted an inter-State sale and not a branch transfer. The Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal held that the CESTAT decision was not applicable as it dealt with classification of pre-fabricated buildings and not with the characterisation of the transaction as a branch transfer or a sale, even though it was not the assessee’s case that the process stated before CESTAT had undergone any change. The matter was accordingly placed before the High Court.
High Court Held
The High Court held that once the assessee had taken a particular stand before CESTAT in the context of the Customs Act, 1962, it could not adopt a different stand under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The Court observed that the manner in which customers placed orders at the branch offices and the manner in which the assessee supplied goods to customers could not change between the two statutory proceedings. The Court further held that, in view of the earlier finding that the movement of goods was pursuant to pre-existing customer orders, the assessing officer was justified in treating the transaction as an inter-State sale rather than a branch transfer under Sections 3(a) and 6A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The High Court accordingly upheld the assessing officer’s order and allowed the appeal in favour of the department.
List of Cases Cited
- Ashok Leyland Ltd. v. State of T.N. — (2004) 3 SCC 7 — Followed [Paras 9, 14, 21]
- Beardsell Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2006 (193) E.L.T. 325 (Tribunal) — Applied [Para 3]
- English Electric Company of India Ltd. v. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer — (1976) 4 SCC 460 — Followed [Para 22]
- Hyderabad Engineering Industries v. State of Andhra Pradesh — (2011) 4 SCC 705 — Followed [Paras 7, 12, 13, 20]
- Union of India v. K.G. Khosla & Co. Ltd. — (1979) 2 SCC 242 — Followed [Para 23]
- Yousuff Radio v. Board of Revenue — (1979) 43 STC 525 — Followed [Paras 7, 26]
