9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 871X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... maintained adequate records, which may depict as to for whom the goods itself had been brought in State of Uttar Pradesh. The Assessing Authority, in such circumstances, has proceeded to treat the assessee as dealer, by virtue of Section 2(h)(ix) of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008. An appeal preferred by the assessee was rejected. However, the second appeal filed before the tribunal by the assessee has been allowed, primarily on the ground that there is no specific provision in the U.P. VAT Act or the Rules, containing any specific provision, which obligates the Contractor to maintain record in a particular manner, regarding the identity of consigner and consignee, and to submit such records before the authority. The tribunal has also pl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ramed under the Act, which deals with registration of Railway Container Contractor. Clause 7 of Rule 38 reads as under:- "Rule 38. Registration of railway container contractor, an air cargo operator, a courier service operator, owner or person incharge of godown or cold storage or warehouse other than transporter- (1) ... (2) ... (7) Every person under this Rule shall maintain following records:- (a) A register in respect of all consignments of goods received by him for transportation or storage; (b) Office copy of goods receipt or consignment note issued in respect of goods received by him for transportation or storage; (c) Office copy of goods challan prepared by him for delivery to the person in charge of the vehicle or dri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... posed by virtue of Sub-rule 7 for the Railway Container Contractor to maintain records as is specified therein. Any failure on part of contractor to furnish details, which it is required in law to maintain, would enable the revenue to treat such contractor as a dealer, and thereby impose obligation of payment of tax upon it. The tribunal in its order has completely failed to notice the statutory scheme itself, and specific requirement of rule has been given a go-by, which renders the view of tribunal unsustainable in law. Further observation by the tribunal that the Railway Container Contractor was actually not found in possession of the goods, is again misconceived. The transportation of goods by the Contractor is not in issue. Once that b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
