9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1969 (12) TMI 107 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax
Issues:
Interpretation of provisions under U.P. Sales Tax Act and Central Sales Tax Act regarding sales made by an assessee acting as a purchasing agent and the tax liability on inter-State sales. Analysis: The case involved a reference submitted under section 11(1) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, raising three questions for the opinion of the court. The first issue was whether a seller could legally act as a purchasing agent for buyers outside Uttar Pradesh. The court clarified that a person can only be a purchasing agent if they buy goods on behalf of principals from other parties, not when supplying their own goods. Thus, the court answered this question in the negative, stating that the assessee acted as a seller, not a purchasing agent. Regarding the second question, the court addressed whether supplies made by the assessee to certain dealers constituted sales under the U.P. Sales Tax Act. The Sales Tax Officer had held that supplies from the assessee's sister concern were not exempt and were liable to tax under the Central Sales Tax Act as they were considered sales of the assessee's own goods. The court affirmed this view, emphasizing that a person cannot buy and sell their own goods, leading to the conclusion that the supplies were indeed sales. The third question pertained to whether the supplies made by the assessee to ex U.P. dealers qualified as inter-State sales taxable under the Central Sales Tax Act. The court analyzed the definition of inter-State sales under section 3 of the Act, emphasizing that the movement of goods from one state to another was occasioned by the contracts of sale in this case. Despite the property transfer location being immaterial, the court held that these transactions constituted inter-State sales, following precedents and legal interpretations. In conclusion, the court answered all three questions against the assessee, determining that the sales in question were inter-State sales and thus subject to Central sales tax. Consequently, the Commissioner of Sales Tax was awarded costs, and the reference was answered accordingly.
|
