High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
The Commissioner, Trade Tax,U.P.Lucknow v. S/S Amar Deep Industries ,Industrail Area Chandera - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION DEFECTIVE No. 110 of 2000  RD-AH 14348 (24 August 2006)
Court no. 43
Trade Tax Revision no. (110) Of 2000.
The Commissioner, Trade Tax, U. P. Lucknow. ... Revisionist.
S/S Amar Deep Industries, Lalitpur. ... Opp. Party.
Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.
Present revision under section 11 of U.P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") is directed against the order of the Tribunal, dated 28th, April, 2000 relating to the assessment year 1993-94 under the U. P. Trade Tax Act.
During the year under consideration, Dealer/Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as the "Dealer") made purchases for and on behalf of Ex- U. P. Principal for Rs.16,87,706.30 on the basis of orders given by the Ex- U. P. Principal. After the purchases of Wheat, the same were dispatched at the destination of Ex- U. P. Principal. The Assessing Authority, rejected the claim on the ground that in the purchase orders, serial numbers were not mentioned and against some of the purchases, Forms 3-C were issued and the goods were not dispatched within three days after the purchases. First Appellate Authority has confirmed the order of the Assessing Authority. The Tribunal by the impugned order, allowed the appeal and accepted the claim of the dealer and observed that all the three grounds taken by the Assessing Authority were not relevant for the rejection of claim of purchases made for and on behalf of Ex- U. P. Principal.
Heard learned Standing Counsel. No one appears on behalf of the dealer.
Perusal of assessment order shows that the Assessing Authority had examined the transactions. It has not been disputed that the goods were purchased for and on behalf of Ex- U. P. Principal. Reasons given by the Assessing Authority for rejection of claim of exemption on the purchases are not justified. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mukundi Lal Banarsi Das Versus Commissioner of Sales Tax reported in 2003 UPTC 525, held that merely because Form 3-C (1) was issued, the claim of exemption on the purchases being in the course of inter-State purchases cannot be disputed. In my view merely because, in the purchase orders, serial numbers were not mentioned, is also no ground for rejection of claim of inter-State purchases. It has not been disputed that the purchases were made on the basis of orders given by the Ex- U P. Principal and after the purchases, goods were dispatched at the destination of Ex- U. P. Principal, thus, the purchases were rightly held to be purchases in the course of inter-State purchases as held by the Apex Court in the case of C.S.T Vs. M/S Bakhtawar Lal Kailash Chandra reported in 1992 UPTC page 971.
In the result, revision has no force, and is, accordingly, dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.