High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
The Commissioner Trade Tax U.P. Lucknow v. R.K. Suppliers - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 999 of 1999  RD-AH 20667 (6 December 2006)
TRADE TAX REVISION NO.999 OF 1999
TRADE TAX REVISION NO.1004 OF 1999
The Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P., Lucknow. ....Applicant
S/S R.K. Suppliers, Sambhal. .Opp.party
Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.
These two revisions under Section 11 of U.P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as "Act") are directed against the order of Tribunal dated 21.04.1999 relating to the assessment year 1996-97, both under the U.P. Trade Tax Act as well as Central Sales Tax Act.
The dispute relates to the purchases of mentha oil claimed to be made for and on behalf of M/s Tiyan Yuvan India Private Limited, Taloja Industrial Area, Taloja, district Raigarh (Mahrashtra) in pursuance of the written agreement. Such purchases have been claimed as inter-State purchases while assessing authority had levied the tax on the dealer/opposite party (hereinafter referred to as "Dealer") treating it as first purchaser of mentha oil under U.P. Trade Tax Act and the dispatch of the mentha oil to M/s Tiyan Yuvan India Private Limited, Taloja Industrial Area, Taloja, district Raigarh (Mahrashtra) as inter-State sales under Central Sales Tax Act. First appeals filed by the dealer were dismissed. Dealer filed second appeals before the Tribunal, which were allowed. Tribunal held that mentha oil were purchased in pursuance of a written order given by M/s Tiyan Yuvan India Private Limited, Taloja Industrial Area, Taloja, district Raigarh (Mahrashtra) and after the purchases, said mentha oil were despatched outside the State of U.P. to Raigarh (Mahrashtra) at the destination of M/s Tiyan Yuvan India Private Limited, Taloja Industrial Area, Taloja, district Raigarh (Mahrashtra) within two or three days of the purchases and both the purchases and the dispatch were part of the same transactions. It has also been held that as per the agreement, dealer was entitled for the commission @ 50 paisa per kg. Tribunal held that merely on enquiry some of the name of the farmers were found to be forged, it can not be said that the purchases were not made for and behalf of the Ex-U.P. Principal as a purchasing commission agent.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Learned Standing Counsel is not able to dispute the facts stated by the Tribunal in its order. Once it is found that the goods have been purchased in pursuance of the order of the Ex-U.P. Principal and the same have been despatched at the destination of Ex-U.P. Principal and both the purchases and dispatches were part of the same transactions the purchases are in the course of inter-State purchases in view of decision of Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. M/s Bakhtawar Lal Kailash Chand Arhti & others, reported in 1992 UPTC, 971. Apex Court further held that State of U.P. has no jurisdiction to levy the tax on such purchases being in the course of inter-State. Further the dispatches of the goods can not be treated as inter-State sales, inasmuch as movement of the goods were not in pursuance of the contract of sale. In the absence of contract of sale, transactions can not be treated as inter-State sales. In view of the aforesaid fact, I do not find any error in the order of Tribunal.
Issue involved in the present revisions is squarely covered by the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. M/s Bakhtawar Lal Kailash Chand Arhti & others (Surpa).
In the result, both the revisions fail and are accordingly, dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.