9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (4) TMI 654X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ears 1985-86 and 1986-87 are involved. Raising a short controversy, the present revisions have been filed. The applicant claimed that he is carrying on the business in trading agency in food grain and raab. The applicant's claim that certain purchases made on behalf of ex-U.P. principal have not been accepted by any of the authorities. Sri Pawan Shree Agrawal, the learned counsel for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the course of inter-State purchases, coupled with the fact that the applicant-dealer issued IIIC(1) form on such purchases. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that even if form IIIC(1) was issued by the applicant or he has charged purchase tax from such buyers, it would not make any difference in view of the Division Bench decision of this court in Mukund Lal Banarasi Lal v. Commissi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... chases. In this regard, a reference to section 3 of the Central Sales Tax Act was made. I have given careful consideration to the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. The basis of the judgment of the Division Bench of this court in the case of Mukund Lal Banarasi Lal [2003] 135 STC 524; [2003] UPTC 525 is the judgment of the apex court in Commissioner of Sales Tax v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n if it has been held that issuance of form IIICSee at page 204 of [1992] 87 STC. is not a decisive factor to hold that the transaction in question is not in the course of inter-State purchases but looking to the fact that the applicant has charged the purchase tax, is certainly a strong factor against the applicant. The Tribunal has considered the explanation given by the applicant in response to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
