9911796707
TMI Blog1982 (3) TMI 242X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e purchases made by the said agents were despatched outside the State, the agents only charging their commission for it, the transaction became one in the course of inter-State sale for the goods moved as a result of the contract between the ex-U.P. purchaser and the commission agent, which contract alone occasioned the movement of the goods outside the State. The Tribunal, without ascertaining any other fact than the one that purchases had been made by the dealer at the instance of ex-U.P. principals held the turnover not liable to tax in the hands of the dealer. For the applicability of the dictum of this Court in the case of Hanuman Trading Co. [1979] 43 STC 408; 1979 UPTC 809, what is necessary is that the contract, albeit orally, between the ex-U.P. principals and the commission agent, should occasion the movement of the goods outside the State of U.P. after their purchase by the commission agent in pursuance of the instructions received from the ex-U.P. principal. This is the view which has been accepted by this Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. v. Chhotey Lal Parmeshwar Lal (printed at page 416 infra) 1981 ATJ 149. The observations made by this Court in that case we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The assessing authority accepted the accounts and the disclosed turnover for this year but did not allow exemption to the assessee on certain purchases claimed to have been made for and on behalf of some ex-U.P. principals and they were brought to tax under section 3-D(1) of the Act. These purchases were of Rs. 17,465.00 of gur and of Rs. 6,22,890.60 of oil-seeds and of Rs. 72,134.65 of foodgrains. According to the assessee, these were inter-State purchases and the assessee was not liable to any tax in respect thereof under section 3-D(1) of the Act. The assessing authority observed that the assessee admitted before it that it had made these purchases from cartmen and had taken delivery of the same and paid the price thereof and the seller had no control over the goods thereafter, that is, when and where the same would be despatched. In the opinion of the assessing authority, on these facts, these transactions could not be treated as inter-State purchases but they represented purchases made by the assessee from local cartmen liable to tax under the Act. The same view was taken by the appellate authority. When the matter came up in revision before the Additional Judge (Revision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the revising authority that the assessee was a purchasing commission agent is perverse or suffers from any error of law." Therefore, when in that case the standing counsel could not show that the view taken by the revising authority suffered from any manifest error of law, this Court declined to interfere. Before me the position is different and such was also the position in several other similar cases which have come up before me. They are Sales Tax Revision No. 496 of 1980 (Commissioner of Sales Tax v. GorakhPur Dal and Oil Mills) decided on 13th January, 1981, and Sales Tax Revision No. 499 of 1980 (Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Laxmi Trading Company) decided on 21st January, 1981. I am of the opinion that each case is an authority on its own facts. Before the benefit of the decision given in Hanuman Trading Company [1979] 43 STC 408; 1979 UPTC 809 can be invoked it has to be found as a fact as to whether the impugned transaction comes within the ambit of section 3(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act. It will be useful to make a reference in this behalf to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Northern India Caterers (India) Ltd. v. Lt. Governor of Delhi [1980] 45 ST ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 809 by physically lifting some of the observations made therein, in his judgment given in the present case. I may state that the facts found in the case of Hanuman Trading Company [1979] 43 STC 408; 1979 UPTC 809 were that the dealer, inter alia, made purchases for ex-U.P. principals from agriculturists and cartmen and despatched those goods on the same day if railway wagons were avilable. In case they were not available the longest interval in despatch of goods was not more than three days. Further it was found that the movement of the goods purchased by the assessee was pursuant to a contract of purchase entered into between the assessee and the ex-U.P. buyers. Apart from this on the purchase of the goods for ex-U.P. principals in their own account the assessee could not divert the goods. In short, therefore, since the facts have not been inquired into the case certainly needs reconsideration. An attempt has been made on behalf of the assessee to show that these transactions were in the nature of inter-State purchases and for that purpose certain charts containing extracts from the account books have been filed. There is nothing to show that these charts were examined by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment to purchase and since it had not been shown that that finding was perverse, there was no merit in the grievance of the revenue to the contrary. In my opinion, in so far as this question is concerned it as well needs reconsideration for the reasons given in detail above. The question for consideration was as to whether these purchases of rice were made from Nepali traders in the course of inter-State trade or commerce. According to the assessee's case itself the despatches had been made by the Nepali traders and they had obtained railway receipts in their own names. After receiving payments from the assessee in respect of those despatches, they endorsed the railway receipts in favour of the assessee and the latter endorsed them in favour of the ex-U.P. buyers. It would have to be seen as to whether the transactions were covered by the provisions contained in section 3(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act. An almost similar question had come up before me in Sales Tax Revision No. 1123 of 1978 (Commissioner, Sales Tax v. Ram Charan Sajan Kumar) decided on 11th February, 1980, and there also for proper investigation into facts the matter was referred back. In view of the above disc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
