Page 59 - GSTL_14th May 2020_Vol 36_Part 2

2020 (36) G.S.T.L. 161 (S.C.)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose, JJ.
COMMERCIAL TAXES OFFICER
Versus
BOMBAY MACHINERY STORE
Civil Appeal No. 2217 of 2011 with C.A. Nos. 2220 of 2011 & 10000-10001
of 2017, decided on 27-4-2020
Inter-State Sales - Goods delivered to carrier for transmission in course
of inter-State sale - Transfer of title documents subsequent to goods reaching
location within destination State - Timeframe within which delivery of goods
to be taken from carrier - HELD : First explanation to Section 3 of Central Sales
Tax Act, 1956 does not qualify ‘delivery’ with any timeframe within which
such delivery has to take place - Hence, it was impermissible for State Tax
Administration to fix such timeframe - It was more so as there was no
acknowledgement, as specified in Section 51(3) of Sale of Goods Act, 1930 for
termination of transit, by carrier to buyer/his agent that former held goods on
behalf of latter - Section 3 of Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. [paras 12, 14]
Inter-State Sales - Legal fiction created in first explanation to Section 3
of Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 - Movement of goods from one State to another
terminates on delivery of goods to carrier for transmission - HELD : In this
provision there is no express or implied concept of constructive delivery - For
purposes of Section 3(b) of Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 movement of goods
terminate only when delivery is taken - There is no scope to qualify “delivery”
within this provision. [para 15]
Interpretation of statutes - Tax Administration cannot interpret legisla-
tive provisions based on their own perception of trade practise - They cannot
supply words to legislative provisions to cure omissions of legislature - If they
felt assessee/dealer was taking unintended benefit of legislative provisions,
proper course would be legislative amendment. [para 15]
Appeals dismissed
CASES CITED
Arjan Dass Gupta and Brothers v. Commissioner of Sales Tax
— (1980) 45 STC 52 (Delhi) — Overruled .......................................................................... [Paras 6, 15]
CTO v. Bhagwandas & Sons — 1996 Tax World 107 — Referred ....................................................... [Para 2]
Guljag Industries Limited v. State of Rajasthan — (2003) 129 STC 3 (Raj.) — Noted .......... [Paras 6, 7, 8]
GST LAW TIMES  14th May 2020  59