9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (3) TMI 239X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Revenue, Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior, on a direction made by this Court has referred the following question of the law for the opinion of this Court: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in arriving at the decision that there was no sale of the stone metal (gitti) by Govindram Hanuman Prasad to the assessee and consequently, the amount of Rs. 7,93 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g authority held that the stone metal (gitti) was not purchased by the assessee from M/s. Govindram Hanuman Prasad but the assessee was granted a right to quarry the stone metal (gitti) by Govindram Hanuman Prasad on payment of royalty. The deduction claimed by the assessee was, therefore, disallowed. The appellate authority and the Board of Revenue in second appeal upheld the order of the assessi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Hanuman Prasad by paying him a sum of Rs. 7,930. The Tribunal held that it was not a sale of stone metal (gitti) by Govindram Hanuman Prasad to the assessee because the assessee did not pay the price but paid royalty for the goods taken delivery of by the assessee from quarries. The Tribunal has referred to a letter addressed by Govindram Hanuman Prasad to the assessee in which it was stated that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n Prasad. In the circumstances the property in goods which belonged to Govindram Hanuman Prasad passed on to the assessee for consideration and the transaction between the two parties was a transaction of sale and nothing else. 6.. It is not disputed that if the assessee purchased the stone metal (gitti) supplied by him to the railway from Govindram Hanuman Prasad who is a registered dealer the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
