High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
The Commissioner ,Trade Tax ,U.P. Lucknow v. S/S Ashoka Traders, Gaushala Road Chandausi - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 120 of 2000  RD-AH 5333 (6 March 2006)
TRADE TAX REVISION NO.120 of 2000.
The Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P., Lucknow. Applicant
S/S Ashoka Traders, Gaushala Road, Chandausi. Opp.Party.
Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.
Present revision under Section 11 of U.P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as "Act") is directed against the order of Tribunal dated 20th August, 1999 relating to the assessment year 1991-92 under the Central Sales Tax Act.
During the year under consideration, it was found that the dealer/opposite party (hereinafter referred to as "Dealer") had dispatched 245 quintals of Bajra from its Chandausi Godown to M/S Naresh Industries, Khanna, Punjab on 4.4.1991. When the dealer was confronted with the aforesaid fact, it was stated that the tax paid goods were purchased in the earlier years in the month of February, 1992 on the instructions of M/S Naresh Industries, Khanna, Punjab and as per their instructions, goods worth Rs.1,14,334/- was sold within the State of U.P. and the balance goods for Rs.53,746/- was sent on 4.4.1991 to the said party. It appears that initially, it was submitted by the dealer that the goods were sent by way of stock transfer and Form F in respect of the said transactions could be furnished but Form F could not be submitted. Assessing authority treated the transactions as inter-State sales on the ground that under section 6-A of the Act, burden lies upon the dealer to prove that the movement of goods was not in pursuance of any prior contract of sale. It has been observed that the dealer had given contradictory statement, namely, that initially, it has been stated that on the instructions of the Ex-U.P. Principal, the goods were dispatched and subsequently, it was stated that the goods were sent on consignment basis. It has also been observed that the builty was prepared in the name of the self, which was subsequently endorsed in favour of Ex-U.P. party. First appellate authority and the Tribunal accepted the plea of the dealer and deleted the tax levied on such dispatch. It has been observed that, it has not been disputed that the goods were purchased on behalf of M/S Naresh Industries, Khanna, Punjab and was dispatched to the said party. On these facts, it has been held that the movement of goods was not in pursuance of any prior contract of sale.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
I do not find any error in the order of the Tribunal. Perusal of the assessment order shows that it has not been disputed that the goods were purchased on the instructions of M/S Naresh Industries, Khanna, Punjab. If it is so, further movement of goods to M/S Naresh Industries, Khanna, Punjab cannot be said to be in pursuance of any prior contract of sale and the movement of goods cannot be treated as inter-State sales. Tribunal rightly held so.
In the result, revision fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.