High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
M/S Ansari Gur Bhandar v. Commissioner Of Trade Tax Up Lucknow - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 547 of 1999  RD-AH 6438 (23 March 2006)
Court no. 55
Trade Tax Revision no. 547 Of 1999.
M/S Ansari Gur Bhandar, Padrauna. ... Applicant.
The Commissioner of Sales Tax, U. P. Lucknow. ...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 13.07.1999 relating to the assessment year 1986-87 under the Central Sales Tax Act.
Applicant was carrying on the business of Gur. During the assessment proceeding under the U. P. Trade Tax Act, applicant had disclosed the entire sales of Gur inside the State of U. P. for Rs.11,47,302.50. Subsequently, the Assessing Authority received information that the applicant had dispatched 27 Trucks Gur outside the State of U. P. On the basis of information, applicant was asked to explain that why such sales have not been disclosed and tax on such sales have not been admitted. Applicant produced books of account. In the books of account, 9-R and Cash-book could not be produced on the ground that they were misplaced, however, 6-R was produced. It was claimed before the Assessing Authority that the goods were purchased on the Purchasing Commission Agency on the instructions of Ex- U. P. Principal and after purchasing the goods, were dispatched at the destination of Ex- U. P. Principal. Thus, movement of goods was not in pursuance to the prior contract of sale. The Assessing Authority rejected the claim of the applicant on the ground that in the 6-R, name and addresses of Ex- U. P. Principal was not mentioned. It was further held that the applicant could not produce any copy of order or instructions of the Ex- U. P. Principal for making the purchases and 9-R was also not produced by which, the goods were dispatched outside the State of U. P. The Assessing Authority held that the applicant was not able to prove that the goods were purchased in the Purchasing Commission Agency and were dispatched to the Ex- U. P. Principal and accordingly, treated the transaction as inter-State sales and levied tax. The Assessing Authority estimated the turnover at Rs.7,60,000/-. First appeal filed by the applicant was allowed in part. The First Appellate Authority has up held the order of the Assessing Authority treating the transactions as inter-State sales, but reduced the turnover to Rs.7 Lacs. Applicant filed Second Appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by the impugned order, rejected the appeal.
Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that the goods were purchased in the Purchasing Commission Agency on behalf of Ex- U. P. Principal and were dispatched outside the State of U. P. at the destination of Ex- U. P. Principal. The movement of goods was not in pursuance of any prior contract of sale and was not the inter-State sales. Learned Standing Counsel relied upon the order of the Tribunal.
Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the order of Tribunal and the authorities below.
I do not find any substance in the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the applicant. Under Section 6 of the Central Sales Tax Act, burden lies upon the dealer to claim that the movement of goods outside the State of U. P. was not in pursuance of any prior contract of sale. In the present case, the Assessing Authority found that initially the applicant had disclosed such sales as intra-State sales and also admitted the liability of tax. Subsequently, when information was received that 27 Trucks Gur were dispatched outside the State of U. P. and were not sold inside the State of U. P., the applicant took the plea that the purchases were made in the Purchasing Commission Agency on behalf of Ex- U. P. Principal. In support of such claim, no documents were produced. The Assessing Authority observed that the copy of order or any instruction had not been produced. In the 6-R name and addresses of Ex-U. P. Principal was not mentioned. 9-R were also not produced. In this view of the matter, the dealer failed to prove that the movement of goods was otherwise than in pursuance of prior contract of sale. In the circumstances, the view taken by the Tribunal and the authorities below are up held.
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.