High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
The Commissioner Trade Tax U.P. v. S/S Mangalam Agro Industries - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 2994 of 2004  RD-AH 18915 (8 November 2006)
TRADE TAX REVISION NO.2994 OF 2004
The Commissioner Trade Tax, U.P., Lucknow. ....Applicant
S/s Mangalam Agro Industries, Khunipur, Gorakhpur. .Opp.party
Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.
Heard Learned Standing Counsel.
By the impugned order Tribunal has confirmed the order of the first appellate authority accepting the plea of the dealer/opposite party (hereinafter referred to as "Dealer") in respect of the purchases made for and on behalf of Ex-U.P. Principal. During the year under consideration, dealer claimed to have made the purchases for and on behalf of Ex-U.P. Principal at Rs.38,91,482/- on the basis of the orders received on telephone. Wheat were purchased against 6R in which name and address of the sellers were mentioned and in the satti bahi, entries were made on behalf of Ex-U.P. Principal. The goods were despatched at the destination of the Ex-U.P. Principal on the same day. On these facts, it was claimed that the movement of goods at the destination of the Ex-U.P. Principal were in the course of inter-State purchases. First appellate authority has not accepted the plea of the dealer on the ground that there was no written agreement with the Ex-U.P. Principal to purchase the goods on their behalf and in the 6R name of the sellers and name of the village were mentioned but the father's name was not mentioned. It appears that the first appellate authority remanded back the matter to the assessing authority. Against the said order, dealer filed appeal before the Tribunal. Tribunal set aside the order of the first appellate authority and remanded back the matter to the first appellate authority with the direction to decide the appeal on merit. In pursuance thereof, first appellate authority examined the matter in detail and vide order dated 25.04.2000 allowed the appeal and accepted the plea of purchases made for and on behalf of Ex-U.P. Principal. Appeal filed by the Commissioner of Trade Tax has been rejected by the impugned order.
I have perused the order of Tribunal and the first appellate authority.
First appellate authority held that the purchases were made on the basis of the orders received on telephone. Necessary entries were made in satti bahi on behalf of Ex-U.P. Principal and the goods were despatched to the Ex-U.P. Principal on the same day. It has been held that a detailed list of such purchases and the dispatch outside the State of U.P. have been furnished giving the date of purchases, quantity, vehicle number, R.R. etc. First appellate authority has examined the transactions and referred few transactions in its order by way of example and has held that the purchases were made for and on behalf of Ex-U.P. Principal and the goods have been despatched outside the State of U.P. in the course of inter-State purchases. Findings recorded by the first appellate authority has been confirmed by the Tribunal. I do not find any reason to interfere with the findings recorded by both the appellate authorities. Findings of both the appellate authorities are finding of fact based on the material on record. No question of law is involved in the present revision.
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.