,.::pfc£^.-a~^ IN THE HI<3H C»1?RI* OP •T©E>IGAT0fiiS^_^B&LS^R(M..P^lt WRIT PETITIOlf N0 •«^i^ 0 /1998 PETlTIOHERt Geat^ixy Textiles aad ledustries Iitdy Dr«Aa®ieBesant B@ad|| Worli^' Hwaibai, liaviag its Uoit; afe BMK©HI?H»ia ©istrict^aip^r Igy name "GSHEURSr CEMEKI"* R SX? S - JRESPOSDESiECSt ^1* -s s- 3. ©©nroereialTax Offieer^ CSirele IVij R^IPUR(M«P«) G@«nA»»ioaer@f GSMmaercial Ta^ Madtt»3?a Pradesh^ I N ® @ R B State of Nadliya pradesh»| Tbr©ugfa«SeGretary» Bepartraeat of ^©naerse& lod^stries» ©everQaeErfc of Madhya prades^ B H©E> A & ••• IS ®iEMAa'TgR ©FABa?IGLE_2M/227 ©t CONSriTt^IGN OF ISQlAt Ai®_ IN TKE MftSTER OF M.Po CONNEBCaA^ IAX ACTt L_- ^^•-^^-^ijp^^^:,^-? o -7 s HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION No. 5180 of 1998 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Century Textiles and Industries Ltd. VERSUS Commercial Tax Officer & Others WRIT PETITION UNDERARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Aanihotri. J. Present: Shri Ashish Shrivastava and Shri Harsh Wardhan, Advocates for the petitioner. Shri A.V. Sridhar, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORDER(ORALl (Passed on 30tt1 day of November, 2010) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the issue involved in this petition is squarely covered by the judgment and order passed by the Supreme Court in 2(/h Century Finance Corpn. Ltd. and another v. State of Maharashtra . The conclusion of the Supreme Court is as under:- "35. As a result of the aforesaid discussion our conclusions are these: (a) The States in exercise of power under Entry 54 of List II read with Article 366(29-A)(d) are not competent to levy sales tax on the transfer of right to use goods, which is a deemed sale, if such sale takes place outside the State or is a sale in the course of inter-State trade or commerce or is a sale in the course of import or export. (b) The appropriate legislature by creating legal fiction can fix situs of sale. In the absence of any such legal fiction the situs of sale in case of the transaction of transfer of right to use any goods would be the place where the property in goods passes, i.e., where the written agreement transferring the right to use is executed. (c) Where the goods are available for the transfer of right to use the taxable even on the transfer of right to use any goods is on the transfer which results in right to use and the situs of sale would be the place 1 (2000)63cc 12 4 'y /y :y^y ./ ^ where the contract is executed and not where the goods are located for use. (d) In cases where goods are not in existence or where there is an oral or imptied transfer of the right to use goods, such transactions may be effected by the delivery of the goods. In such cases the taxable event would be on the delivery of goods. (e) The transaction of transfer of right to use goods cannot be termed as contract of bailment as it is deemed sale within the meaning of the legal fiction engrafted in clause (29-A)(d) of Article 366 of the Constitution wherein the location or delivery of goods to put to use is immaterial". Shri Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that the identical issue came up for consideration before High Court of Madhya Pradesh in M/s Raymond Limited and another v. Commercial Tax Officer, Circle I, Bilaspur & Others , wherein Division Bench has disposed of the matter in the light of order passed by the Supreme Court in 2(fh Century Finance Corpn. Ltd.1. Shri Sridhar, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State, submits that the petition is premature, as no assessment order has been passed till date on account of interim direction passed by the High Courton 02/11/1998. Since the assessment order has not been passed on account of the interim direction and pendency of this case, the authorities may proceed with the case afresh in the light of decision rendered by the Supreme Court in 20f/7 Century Finance Corpn. Ltd. and pass appropriate order, in accordance with law. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge Arun 'WA No.1078/2007 (decided on 21/10/2009)