9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (5) TMI 416X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es Tax Tribunal, Kanpur Bench-1, Kanpur Camp, Jhansi whereby it dismissed the dealer's second appeal No. 167 of 1985. 2.. I have heard Sri Rakesh Kumar Agarwal, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri U.K. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent. 3.. The revisionist deals in tendu leaves that are purchased from the Forest department and are then sold by him. While selling the t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder: "2(e-1) 'manufacture' means producing, making, mining, collecting, extracting, altering, ornamenting, finishing or otherwise processing, treating or adapting any goods; but does not include such manufacture or manufacturing processes as may be prescribed." "2(ee) 'manufacturer', in relation to any goods means the dealer who makes the first sale of such goods in the State after their manu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of tendu leaves was done as an agent for the State and, therefore, the State was a manufacturer. The provisions of the Act show that the Act was intended to create State monopoly in the purchase and distribution of tendu leaves. Section 5-A of the Act provides that the State Government or an officer empowered by it may permit .. a person to whom the State Government has sold or with whom it h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aser shall be deemed to be an agent for the purposes of clauses (1) and (b) of sub-section (1) of section 5 of the Act. Rule 10 contemplates an issue of certificate of sale by the State Government or its officer or the agent to any one to whom the tendu leaves are sold. Forms M and R contain the terms of agreement of sale of tendu leaves between the Government and the purchaser and one of the term ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... chaser to the State of Uttar Pradesh which has to pay it to the sales tax department. It may be mentioned that in the earlier case decided by me the provisions of the aforesaid Act and Rules were not brought to my notice. Accordingly, agreeing with the view taken by this Court in Damodar Dass Sons 1997 UPTC 470. I hold that the revisionist was not a manufacturer and no tax was leviable on its ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
