9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 14X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ic goods having moved from outside the State of U.P. in pursuance of the prior agreement, the value of such amount shall be covered by Section 3F of the Central Sales Tax Act and no tax can be legally imposed? Whether evidence with regard to the prior purchase orders contracts at Nagpur were there or not? The tribunal remained silent about this evidence and simply records a finding that in fact the assessee was seeking to evade tax and had resorted to a device in the movement of goods simply for the purposes of evading the tax. Held that: - the Tribunal is unable to show any finding or any ground at all, which lends support to the orders passed by the Tribunal as to why it has not even considered the fact that actually material eviden ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Sales Tax Act in respect of the goods, which were purchased at Nagpur and central sales tax was duly paid for those goods for their movement from Nagpur to Saharanpur under a contract made between the revisionist and M/s IVO Power Engineering by the Power Grid Corporation of India Limited executed on 22.01.1998. The question of law referred to is hereunder:- Whether even assuming without admitting that the two contracts entered into between the applicant and IVO Power Engineering Limited can be treated as one indivisible works contract liable to tax under Section 3-F of U.P. Trade Tax Act still in view of Section 3 F (2) (b) (i) of U.P. Trade Tax Act the specific goods having moved from outside the State of U.P. in pursuance of the pri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... further evidence or documents are required nor could be demanded by the assessing authority for being satisfied about exemption under Section 6 (2) of the Central Sales Act, 1956 readwith rule 12 of the Central Sales Tax (Registration Turnover) Rules 1957 and subsequent sale in transit in the course of movement of goods pursuant to an inter state purchase has to be granted exemption in view of P.A. George Co. v. ACST (1998) 110 STC 253 (Ker) and State of West Bengal v. Joshi Jute Corpn. (1996) 100 STC 17 (Cal). Photocopies of aforesaid judgements have been placed on record. 15. For in support of the aforesaid transaction of inter state character, the appellants had placed on record following documents:- (a) Details from Sales ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
