High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
The Commissioner, Trade Tax v. S/S Ajai Kumar Narendra Mohan - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 194 of 2000  RD-AH 1663 (1 February 2007)
TRADE TAX REVISION NO.194 of 2000.
The Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P. Lucknow. Applicant
M/S Ajai Kumar Narendra Mohan, Aligarh. 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 7th August, 1999 relating to the assessment year, 1981-82.
Dealer/opposite party (hereinafter referred to as "dealer") claimed to have made purchases for and on behalf of Ex-U.P. Principal to the extent of Rs.20, 48,947.69 and on the said purchases claimed exemption on the ground that they were the purchases in the course of inter-State purchases. Assessing authority issued the detailed show cause notice raising various objections in respect of such purchases claimed to have been made for and on behalf of Ex-U.P. Principal. Few objections were namely, that out of 58 transactions only 16 orders have been produced; copies of the bills and 9R have not been produced; some of the goods have been dispatched earlier to its purchases, the date of such transactions have been referred in the assessment order. First appellate authority observed that the dealer had not furnished any detail as to how the goods had been dispatched, whether through the transporter or through railway and bill and builty etc had not been produced for verification. It has been held that there was no link between the purchases and their dispatches. Tribunal in its order without considering the reasons given by the assessing authority and the first appellate authority and without examining the nature of the transactions held that such purchases were made for and on behalf of Ex-U.P. Principal and allowed the exemption.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Learned Standing Counsel submitted that the Tribunal being the last court of fact should have considered the reasons given by the assessing authority and the first appellate authority while taking the different view. He submitted that the Tribunal without examining the nature of the transactions held that the purchases were in the course of inter-State purchases.
I find substance in the argument of the learned Standing Counsel.
Perusal of the order of the Tribunal shows that the reasons given by the assessing authority and the first appellate authority for rejecting the claim of the dealer that the alleged purchases were made for and on behalf of Ex-U.P. Principal in the course of inter-State purchases have not been considered. The nature of transactions have also not been examined. In the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax Versus M/S Bakhtawar Lal Kailash Chand Arhti, reported in 1992 UPTC page 971, Apex Court held that the purchases made on behalf of Ex-U.P. party and their dispatches outside the State of U.P. at the destination of the Ex-U.P. party as an inter-State purchases not liable to tax under the U.P. Trade Tax Act in case, if the purchases are made on the instruction or direction of Ex-U.P. party as a purchasing commission agent and there is co-relation between the purchases and dispatches. Therefore, for a transaction being an inter State purchase there should be an order or instruction for making purchases; purchases should be in pursuance of such order; and after making the purchases there should be dispatch of the goods at the destination of the Ex-U.P. Principal and there should be a co-relation between the purchases and dispatches. Tribunal being the last court of fact should have examined the each transactions in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of CST Versus M/S Bakhtawar Lal Kailash Chand (supra). Tribunal should have considered whether the purchases were made on the basis of the order or instruction of the Ex-U.P. Principal and after the purchases whether goods were dispatched at the destination of Ex-U.P. Principal outside the State of U.P. and both the purchases and dispatches had co-relation. Since the Tribunal has not examined the transactions in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court, the order of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal to decide the appeal afresh.
In the result, revision is allowed. The order of the Tribunal is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal to decide the appeal afresh in the light of the observations made above.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.