High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Cst v. S.N.S.Prasad - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 1045 of 1993  RD-AH 434 (10 November 2003)
SALES TAX REVISION NO.1045 OF 1993
The Commissioner, Sales Tax, U.P. Lucknow. ....Applicant
Shiv Narain Shiv Prasad, Lalitpur ....Opp.Party
Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.
Present revision is directed against the order of Tribunal dated 18.02.1993 relating to the assessment year 1981-82.
The dealer as purchasing agent made the purchases on behalf of Ex.-U.P. Principal and despatched the same at the destination of Ex-U.P. Principal and claimed such purchases in the course of inter-state sales and the liability of tax under Section 3-D of the Act in view of the decision of CST Vs. Hanuman Trading Company, reported in 1979 UPTC, 809. Assessing authority had rejected the claim of dealer and had levied the tax on such purchases on the ground that the dealer issued Form-3C-1 while making purchases and admitted itself as first purchaser. First appellate authority allowed the claim and deleted the tax levied on such purchases under Section 3-D of the Act. Commissioner of Sales Tax filed appeal before Tribunal, which has been rejected. Following question has been raised in the present revision :
"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Sales Tax Tribunal was legally justified in exempting the T.O. of first purchase of goods notified u/s 3D in the State and allegedly despatched to his ex-UP principal by applying the ratio of CST Vs. Hanuman Trading Com 1979 UPTC-809 in view of amendment of Section 12-A of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 with retrospective effect."
I have heard learned Standing Counsel.
The finding of Tribunal and first appellate authority is that the dealer had made the purchases as purchasing agent on behalf of Ex-U.P. Principal on the basis of the instruction of Ex-U.P.Principal and despatched the same at the destination of Ex-U.P. Principal and such purchases were in the course of inter-state sales has not been disputed. The question involved is squarely covered by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CST Vs. M/S Bakhtawar Lal Kailash Chand Arhti and others, , reported in 1992 UPTC, 971 and Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of M/s Mukund Lal Banarasi Lal Vs. CST, reported in 2003 UPTC, 525. Division Bench held that Section 12-A does not apply to inter-state purchases.
In the result, revision lacks merit and is accordingly, dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.