9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (1) TMI 573X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessment year 1985-86, under the U. P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 and Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and 1986-87 under Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, respectively. The dealer/opposite party (hereinafter referred to as the dealer ) claimed to have made the purchases for and on behalf of ex-U. P. principal and after purchasing the goods on the basis of the order of the ex-U. P. principal, same had been de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re not traceable. The dealer filed appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals). The Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal and deleted the tax. The Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) examined the transactions in detail and it has been held that in 6R the name and address of the farmers and the name of the ex-U. P. principal was also mentioned for whom the purchases were made and in 9R als ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sel for the parties. The learned Standing Counsel is not able to show any error in the order of the Tribunal. Finding of the Tribunal that the purchases were made for and on behalf of ex-U. P. principal and the same had been despatched to the destination of ex-U. P. principal in the course of inter-State purchases, is finding of fact, based on the material on record. Issue involved is covered b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
