1981 (5) TMI 127 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Determination of whether the assessee was an importer of goods within the Sales Tax Rules.
2. Validity of the remand order issued by the appellate authority.
3. Analysis of the relationship between the assessee and the company based on the agreement.
4. Assessment of whether the assessee should be considered an importer for tax liability.
5. Examination of whether the sale was taxable as an inter-State sale.

Analysis:
1. The assessing authority initially rejected the assessee's claim of purchasing goods from the company's depots and deemed the assessee as the importer of goods. The appellate authority set aside the orders and directed a fresh decision, considering affidavits indicating the goods were imported by local depots. The revising authority found sufficient material to decide the controversy and held that the assessee was not liable to pay tax on goods purchased from the company's depot.

2. The revising authority concluded that the appellate authority was not justified in remanding the cases for fresh enquiry as all necessary facts were already on record, and the controversy could have been decided without remand. The revising authority upheld the claim that the assessee was not liable to pay tax on the goods in question.

3. The revising authority analyzed the clauses of the agreement between the assessee and the company, emphasizing that the relationship evolved into that of a buyer and seller rather than principal and agent. The revising authority found that the assessee purchased goods from the company and sold them as a principal, not as an importer, based on the terms of the agreement.

4. The revising authority dismissed the argument that the assessee should be considered an importer due to making the first sale after the goods were imported, as it was established that the company brought the goods to their depots and sold them to the assessee. The revising authority held that the company, not the assessee, became the importer and was assessed accordingly.

5. The argument that the sale was taxable as an inter-State sale was raised, citing clauses of the agreement. However, the revising authority found that the movement of goods did not qualify as an inter-State sale, as the goods were brought by the company to their depots in the state and the sale occurred entirely within the state. The revising authority dismissed this argument and upheld the decision that the revisions fail, with costs awarded to the respondent.