2007 (2) TMI 615 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
Challenging Tribunal's order on purchases made for and on behalf of ex-U.P. principal under U.P. Trade Tax Act and Central Sales Tax Act.

Analysis:
The revisions under section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 challenged the Tribunal's order related to the assessment year 1994-95 under the U.P. Trade Tax Act and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The Tribunal had accepted the dealer's claim regarding purchases made for an ex-U.P. principal and dispatched outside the State of U.P., resulting in the deletion of tax levied under the Acts. The dealer initially admitted tax liability on the purchases but later claimed they were made for the ex-U.P. principal. The assessing authority rejected the claim citing lack of details and verification, while the first appellate authority and Tribunal differed in their decisions. The Tribunal's acceptance of the claim without thorough examination of transactions and legal considerations led to the revisions challenging the order.

Upon review, the Court found merit in the argument presented by the learned Standing Counsel. Referring to the apex court's decision in Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Bakhtawar Lal Kailash Chand Arhti, the Court emphasized that purchases made on the direction of an ex-U.P. principal and dispatched outside the state in a timely manner are considered inter-State transactions. The Court noted that the Tribunal failed to adequately examine each transaction, consider the assessing authority's reasons for rejection, and apply the legal principles established by the apex court. Consequently, the Court concluded that the Tribunal's order was flawed and needed to be set aside.

As a result, the Court allowed both revisions, setting aside the Tribunal's order and remanding the matter back to the assessing authority. The assessing authority was directed to reevaluate each transaction in accordance with the legal principles outlined by the apex court. This decision aimed to ensure a thorough examination of the purchases claimed to be made for and on behalf of the ex-U.P. principal in the context of inter-State transactions, as per the established legal framework.