Sales tax reference petition of 1991 concerning inter-State sale to IRCON Delhi. Court framed questions of law, answered them in petitioner's favour, set aside the Tribunal and assessing officer's orders, and directed reassessment based on 'C' forms issued by IRCON Delhi.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
STC-3-1991 (O&M)
Page 1 of 4
101
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
STC-3-1991 (O&M) Date of Decision: 09.12.2024
M/S CROM P TON GREAVES LTD.
. . . . Petitione r Vs.
THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS
. . . . Respondent s
****
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH
Present: M r. Kapish Chawla, Advocate f or the petitioner.
M r. Saurabh Kapoor, Addl. A.G . , Punjab. ****
SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral)
The petition was therefo r e filed under Section 2 2(3) of the Punjab General Sa l es Tax Act, 1948, as it w as then in force, seeking direc t ion to the Tribunal to r efer the questions of law a s suggested by the p etitioner, and also to set as i de the order of the T ribunal refusing to refer the questions for a djudication of this Court in a ppeal vide its order d ated 31.10.1990.
MOHIT GOYAL 2024.12.10 11:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
STC-3-1991 (O&M)
Page 2 of 4
Learned counsel for the p etitioner has taken us t o the orders passed by the Tri b unal, and also to the d ocuments which were placed b efore the Tribunal, to s ubmit that the bills were addr e ssed essentially to the o ffice of Indian Railway Const r uction Company Ltd. ( IRCON) at R.K. Puram, Delhi and there is a factual e rror which has crept in the ord e rs mentioning that the b ills were addressed to IRCO N Kapurthala, Punjab w here actually the goods have been sent and delivered in terms of an agreement e ntered between the p etitioner and IRCON, and a c o ntract agreement has a lso been referred to by the counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the Excise and Taxation D epartment, Government of Pu n jab, submits that the ‘ C’ form, if provided by the IR C ON, Delhi, would be t he only course to take a different view. We have also noticed that a ‘C’ form was issued a ctually by IRCON, Delhi and t h e same is on record. In view of above, k e eping in view the a mendments made in the Sales Tax Act, it would be h eld that it would not serve an y purpose in directing t he Sales Tax Tribunal to prepar e a reference and send it to this High Court now, as th e High Court now has p owers to hear the appeal a nd frame substantial q uestions of law which may a r ise on account of the o rder passed by the Tribunal.
Accordingly, we frame fo llowing questions of l aw for adjudication as under:
“ 1. Whether in view of the documents and facts and c ircumstances available before the a u thorities below, it can be
MOHIT GOYAL 2024.12.10 11:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
STC-3-1991 (O&M)
Page 3 of 4
s aid that sale was inter-State sale and whether there is a p erversity crept in the order passed b y the Tribunal?
2. Secondly, in view of the ‘C’ form having been issued b y IRCON Delhi, whether it can be s a id that there is an evasion of sales tax or an attempt to evade t a x resulting in imposing of p enalty?”
Taking into consideration that this is an old case p ending since 1991, we direct t he counsel appearing f or the State of Punjab to take in s tructions. He may file a short reply, if he so chooses, w i thin a fortnight.
List this case again on 15.10.2024. It is made clear that no further time shall be g ranted to the counsel.”
MOHIT GOYAL 2024.12.10 11:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
STC-3-1991 (O&M)
Page 4 of 4
IRCO N , Delhi to whom the bills wer e actually addressed to at offic e
(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE
(SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE
December 09, 2024
Mohit goyal
1. Whether speaking/reasoned?
2. Whether reportable?
Yes/No
Yes/No
MOHIT GOYAL 2024.12.10 11:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the sale was an inter-State sale given the bills were addressed to IRCON Delhi and a 'C' form was issued by IRCON Delhi.
Whether the Tribunal's orders were perverse and whether penalty for attempted evasion of sales tax could stand.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
M/S Crompton Greaves Ltd.
The State of Punjab
Sanjeev Prakash Sharma
Sanjay Vashisth
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
