1983 (12) TMI 272

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... refore, the assessee is not liable to pay the purchase tax on her purchase of rubber. This claim of the assessee for exemption on the ground that the turnover represents second purchases of rubber inside the State, was rejected by the assessing authority on the ground that the two persons, Thompson and Jacob, are merely bill traders who lend their names without actually handling the goods and therefore, the assessee should be taken to be the first purchaser of rubber in this State. Aggrieved by the order of the assessing authority, the assessee went before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner also held that the said turnover relating to purchase of rubber from the two persons, Thompson and Jacob, cannot .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... er Board and their Rubber Board licences and registration certificates were also in force. The sale bills issued by the said two persons to the assessee contained Rubber Board licence number, registration certificate number, quantity, rate and the amount and also a certificate to the effect that the goods have already suffered tax in this State at the stage of the first sale. Before the Tribunal, the Revenue did not deny the fact that the two dealers, Thompson and Jacob, were in existence and they were registered dealers and the only contention of the Revenue was that the said dealers have purchased rubber from unknown sources. The Tribunal felt that the fact that those two dealers have purchased rubber from unknown sources is not quite rel .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tual dealer of the same goods in another year. As a matter of fact, a perusal of the decision of the Tribunal in M.T.A. No. 444 of 1982 indicates that Jacob's registration certificate stood cancelled in the year 1980-81 and it is because of the cancellation of the registration certificate he was not in a position to actually deal with the goods and he was only acting as a bill trader. Indeed for the assessment year 1978-79 there is no such evidence and it has been specifically found even by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner that the registration certificates of both Thompson and Jacob have not been cancelled and that they were in fact licensed to deal in rubber by the Rubber Board and they have also registered themselves in the Rubber Bo .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X