High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
The Commissioner, Trade Tax,U.P. Lucknow v. S/S Sanjaya & Company Jaganair, Agra - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION DEFECTIVE No. 272 of 1999  RD-AH 7049 (6 December 2005)
Court no. 55
TRADE TAX REVISION NO. (272) OF 1999.
The Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P. Lucknow ... Revisionist
S/S Sanjaya and Company, Agra. ... Opposite Party.
Hon'ble Rajes Kumr, 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 24.10.1998 relating to the assessment year 1986-87 under the U. P. Trade Tax Act.
Dealer/Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as "the Dealer") claimed to have acted as a Selling Commission Agent on behalf of farmers and despatched their goods outside the State of U. P. to the Ex- U. P. Commission Agent for sale on consignment basis. The total sales were claimed to have been made for Rs.23,23,425/-. Assessing Authority had not accepted the claim of the dealer being acted as a Selling Agent and treated the transactions as purchases and levied tax under Section 3-D. Assessing Authority, however, accepted the despatch of the goods outside the State of U. P. to the Commission Agent for sale on consignment basis. Claim of dealer had been rejected in appeal. Dealer filed appeal before the Tribunal, which has been allowed, and the tax levied on the purchases, have been deleted. Tribunal held that in Satti Bahi, names and addresses of farmers were mentioned and details of despatch of the goods to the Ex- U. P. Commission Agent have also been mentioned. It has been held that after sale of goods by the Ex- U. P. Agent, 6-Rs have been issued in the names of farmers. Tribunal held that necessary details in this regard, were furnished and affidavit and Form-F have also been filed. On the basis of these materials, Tribunal accepted the claim of the dealer that it acted as selling Commission Agent and the goods were despatched on behalf of farmers and it was not purchases of the dealer.
Heard learned Standing Counsel. No one appears on behalf of the dealer.
I do not find any error in the order of Tribunal. Perusal of assessment order shows that the details of arrival of the goods and despatch of the goods were furnished. It was also submitted that the names and addresses of the farmers were mentioned in the Satti Bahi and after sale of the goods, 6-Rs were issued in the names of farmers. These facts have not been disputed by the assessing authority. Tribunal has found that the names and addresses of the farmers were mentioned in the Satti Bahi and 6-Rs in favour of the farmers were issued after sale of the goods by the Ex- U. P. Commission Agent, establishes that the goods were despatched on the arrival of the goods to the Ex- U. P. Commission Agent on behalf of farmers and after sale, payment etc. were made to the farmers on the basis of 6-Rs which were issued after sale. Thus, the view of the Tribunal that the dealer acted as a Selling Agent on behalf of farmers cannot be said to be erroneous. On the facts of the case, revision is devoid of any material.
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.