Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

THE COMMISSIONER, TRADE TAX, U.P. LUCKNOW versus S/S. SRI RAM TRADERS, RAMKATORA, VARANASI

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


The Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P. Lucknow v. S/S. Sri Ram Traders, Ramkatora, Varanasi - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION DEFECTIVE No. 1606 of 1998 [2005] RD-AH 2120 (25 August 2005)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

COURT NO.55

TRADE TAX REVISION NO.(1606) OF 1998

The Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P. Lucknow. ....Applicant

Versus

S/S Sri Ram Traders, Varanasi.   ....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 24.03.1998 for the assessment year 1988-89.

Dealer opposite party (hereinafter referred to as "Dealer") was carrying on the business of chemicals, sodaash, castic soda, minerals etc. During the year under consideration dealer had despatched the goods for sale on consignment basis  to M/s Sri Ram Kamal Industries, Ranchi and M/s Anoop Trading Company, Ranchi. The total consignment sale through the aforesaid two parties were assessed at Rs.8,89,357/-. In respect of consignment sale, dealer furnished sale note of the aforesaid two parties and also Form-F. Assessing authority rejected the claim of consignment sale and treated the despatch of the goods as inter-State sales mainly on the ground that in some of the cases the money has been received  in advance from the consignment agent and the same value has been received from the consignment agent, which was mentioned in the challan. First appeal filed by the dealer was rejected.  Dealer filed second appeal before the Tribunal, which was allowed. Tribunal held that the dealer had filed Form-F and consignment note in respect of the transactions, in which no defect was found. Tribunal held that the assessing authority had failed to prove that the movement of the goods was in pursuance of any prior contract of sale. It was further held that merely because in some of the cases, money was received in advance from the consignment agent, the claim of consignment sale can not be disputed.

Heard learned Standing Counsel and learned counsel for the dealer.

Learned Standing Counsel submitted that assessment order shows in some of the cases money has been received in advance  from the consignment agent and the same amount, which is mentioned in the challan has only been received from the consignment agent which goes to prove that in fact goods have been sold to the aforesaid parties, namely  M/s Sri Ram Kamal Industries, Ranchi and M/s Anoop Trading Company, Ranchi and the goods have not been despatched to the aforesaid two parties for sale on consignment basis. Learned counsel for the dealer submitted that goods have been despatched in pursuance of the agreement between the parties to sell the goods on behalf of the dealer at Ranchi. He submitted that the sale note clearly shows the details of sale made by the aforesaid consignment agent on behalf of the dealer. He further submitted that in the sale note complete details and the expenses incurred by the aforesaid two consignment agent and payment of commission is mentioned. He further submitted that the consignment agent have furnished Form-F in which no defect was found. There is no evidence to prove that the goods had moved to the aforesaid two parties in pursuance of any prior contract of sale.

I have perused the order of Tribunal and the authorities below.

Perusal of the assessment order shows that the sale note and Form-F have been filed. The details of the sale note which is referred in the order shows that the value of the actual sale were higher than the value mentioned in the challan. Part payment has been made in advance and balance amount has been subsequently paid. The sale note also shows  that the  various expenses, freight etc. have been charged  by the commission agent apart from the commission. Form-F were also furnished by the dealer, obtained from the aforesaid two commission agent, in which no defect were found. Merely because the money has been received in advance against the despatch of the goods, it can not be inferred that the movement of the goods was in pursuance of any prior contract of sale in the absence of any material to the contrary to prove that movement of goods was in pursuance of any contract of sale. There is no reason to dispute the Form-F and the sale note  which have been furnished by the dealer to prove that the despatch of the goods were for sale on consignment basis and were not in pursuance of any prior contract of sale.

In the result, revision fails and is accordingly, dismissed.

Dt.25.08.2005

R./


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.