1987 (2) TMI 477

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d and disposed of as a revision. The material facts are these: The assessee is a manufacturer of wire cloth having its head office at Calcutta in the State of West Bengal and its factory at Jaipur in the State of Rajasthan. During the relevant period the assessee disclosed its inter-State sales to the extent of Rs. 25,57,633 and in addition it showed transfer of wire cloth valued at Rs. 2,75,800 from its factory in Jaipur to its head office at Calcutta. It claimed that no tax was payable on the transactions amounting to the value of Rs. 2,75,800 since they were not even sales but merely transfer of the manufactured goods from Jaipur to Calcutta. The assessing authority rejected this contention and held that the movement of these goods .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... contracts, existing before the movement of goods though these contracts were effected at Calcutta between the seller's representative and the buyers. The intending purchasers have sent their own packings to the manufacturing plant at Jaipur in which the goods were packed and sent. Accordingly, a view cannot be taken reasonably that the movement of goods from Jaipur to Calcutta was independent of the agreement to sell and the actual sales concluded thereunder." Thereafter, the assessee preferred a special appeal before the Division Bench of the Board of Revenue which was allowed. Hence this reference at the instance of the department which has now to be heard and decided as revision as earlier stated. It is clear from the order of the Di .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of the Tribunal, it is clear that it did not reverse the finding of fact of the Single Bench that the movement of goods from Jaipur to Calcutta was occasioned and was a direct consequence of sale and in fact the Division Bench itself did not rule out the probability of the movement being occasioned by the sale transaction. The Division Bench of the Tribunal committed the obvious error of treating the assessee's Jaipur office and head office as distinct legal entities which is patently erroneous. In fact, the above extract from the order of the Division Bench is sufficient to indicate that the requisite findings to support the contrary conclusion reached by it that the movement of goods from Jaipur to Calcutta was not occasioned by the sale .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X