9911796707
TMI Blog1966 (12) TMI 58X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d Act?" 2.. The assessee-firm is a registered dealer having its head office at Seoni and a branch office at Calcutta. The assessee deals in various articles including jute. During the assessment period from 21st October, 1960 to 8th November, 1961, the assessee purchased hemp worth Rs. 11,42,629.10 from agriculturists and unregistered dealers. No sales tax was payable under section 6 of the Act on these sales by the agriculturists and unregistered dealers. The hemp purchased by the assessee was not re-sold in the State of Madhya Pradesh, but was sent to Calcutta. The Sales Tax Officer, Balaghat, held that the assessee was liable to pay purchase tax under section 7 of the Act. In appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Sales ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d out of the territories of India to show that the purchase was in the course of export outside the territories of India." 4.. It is not disputed before us that if the transactions are not covered by section 50(1)(iii), purchase tax under section 7 will be attracted. That the despatch of hemp to the assessee's branch at Calcutta did not involve an inter-State transaction is apparent and the point was properly not pressed. The only question that remains to be decided is whether the transactions are covered by section 50(1)(iii) of the Act. That section provides"50. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, a tax on the sale or purchase of goods shall not be imposed under this Act- (i) * * * (ii) * * * (iii) where such sale ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Tribunal it is evident that the necessary link between the two transactions, namely, the agreement of the assessee to supply certain quantity of hemp to the foreign buyer and the purchases actually made by the assessee from the local agriculturists or unregistered dealers is not established. On this finding, the only answer possible is that the purchases were not made in the course of export of the articles outside the Indian territory. Shri Tankha, learned counsel for the petitioner, however, urged that the findings reached by the Tribunal were not justified in the face of the evidence produced by the assessee. This contention cannot be countenanced. This Court can answer the question referred to it on the basis of facts found by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
