Page 67 - GSTL_14th May 2020_Vol 36_Part 2

2020 ] COMMERCIAL TAXES OFFICER v. BOMBAY MACHINERY STORE 169
been quashed and in absence of any other material justifying the denial of
exemption under Section 6(2) of the Act to the assessee, the impugned or-
der of the Tax Board allowing such exemption to the assessee is not re-
quired to be interfered with in the present revision petitions filed by the
Revenue.”
8. We must add here that the decision in the case of Guljag (supra) was
subsequently carried up in appeal before this Court. It appears from the records
of this Court that two of these appeals were disposed of on 30th September, 2010
as the assessee chose to approach the statutory forum whereas another appeal
was dismissed having regard to the quantum of tax involved in the appeal.
9. We, accordingly, shall test the revenue’s case including the question
of legality of the said two circulars in the context of the provisions of Sections 3
and 6 of the 1956 Act. The respondent in this case had taken benefit of sub-
section (2) on the ground that this was a case involving inter-State sale and the
sale took place by way of transfer of documents of title of such goods during
their movement from one State to another. It is also the respondents’ case that the
requisite forms and certificates were duly furnished pertaining to such sales. On
the part of the State, barring retention of the goods in the transporters’ godown
at the destination point for a long period of time, default on no other count by
the assesses has been asserted.
10. In the two appeals in which the respondent is Bombay Machinery
Stores, sales pertained to financial years before the circulars came into subsist-
ence. In these instances of sales, the Commercial Tax officer in the respective or-
ders treated retention of goods beyond 30 days in the transporters’ godown as
the cut-off period. After that date, the assessee was deemed to have had taken
constructive delivery of goods and sale beyond that period within the State of
Rajasthan was held to be local sales and subjected to sales tax under the State
Law. Same reasoning was followed in the respective orders of the tax authorities
forming subject-matters of two appeals involving Unicolour Chemicals Compa-
ny. The Tax Board, while deciding the issue in favour of revenue, referred to the
aforesaid two circulars in upholding the concept of constructive delivery.
11. As per the aforesaid circulars, retention of goods by the transporter
beyond the time stipulated therein (being 30 days as per the later circular) would
imply that constructive delivery of the goods has been made by the transporter
to the consignee. In such a situation, the transit status of the goods would stand
terminated and the deeming provision in first explanation to Section 3 of the
1956 Act conceiving the time-point of delivery as termination of movement shall
cease to operate.
12. In this set of appeals we have already indicated that transfer of
documents of title were effected subsequent to the goods reaching the location
within destination State. But when the goods are delivered to a carrier for trans-
mission, first explanation to Section 3 of the 1956 Act specifies that movement of
the goods would be deemed to commence at the time when goods are delivered
to a carrier and shall terminate at the time when delivery is taken from such car-
rier. The said provision does not qualify the term ‘delivery’ with any timeframe
within which such delivery shall have to take place. In such circumstances fixing
of timeframe by order of the Tax Administration of the State in our opinion
would be impermissible.
13. Before the High Court, the revenue authorities has relied on Section
51 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 (hereinafter referred to as the “1930 Act”). But
GST LAW TIMES  14th May 2020  67