1990 (9) TMI 325

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... pondent is the same assessee, in both the cases. The revisions relate to the assessment years 1976-77 and 1979-80. The Revenue prays for revising the common order passed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal for the above two years dated 18th December, 1986. The respondent/assessee is a dealer in arecanut. The respondent is also making purchases of arecanuts on behalf of non-resident principals. Dur .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... sion agent of nonresident principals. The respondent/assessee purchased the goods and despatched them to the non-resident principals. Arecanut is liable to be taxed in the State on the last purchase point. As soon as the purchases were made and despatched to the non-resident principals, the deal by the assessee was complete. The purchase price was also paid. Any amount received by the assessee as .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... v. Ghanshyam Kumar Pasupathinath [1991] 81 STC 63). 3.. Following the earlier decision of this Court in T.R.C. Nos. 127 to 130 of 1989 (Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Ghanshyam Kumar Pasupathinath [1991] 81 STC 63), we are of the view that the decision of the Appellate Tribunal is justified in law, and that the order sought to be revised does not merit interference. 4.. The above tax rev .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X