9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (3) TMI 818X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n fact sold the goods in question in Calcutta himself and that the provisions of Section 6-A of the Act, 1956 were not applicable in this case. The authorities were of the view that there was clear evasion of tax and second appellate order was passed. The only defect with the assessment order as has been mentioned by the counsel for the revisionist is that at best the said transaction would be inter state sale rather than intra state sale. He submits that the entire proceedings are based on a solitary material/evidence/ the report of S.I.B. If the report of S.I.B. is to be believed than the transaction was an inter state sale, the goods emanating from Allahabad were to be sold in Calcutta - It is undisputed that the report of S.I.B. clea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6 (in short 'the Act, 1956') and Form-F was duly issued under the Act, 1956 by the person to whom the goods were sent. The assessment proceedings were culminated. The respondents received certain information in respect of the said transaction which involved element of sale inasmuch as the goods were transported by the revisionist himself to Calcutta and sold by him in the State of West Bengal and the revisionist having been concealed this fact, proceedings under Section 21 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 (in short 'the Act, 1948') were initiated in respect of the transaction of foodgrains of worth ₹ 16,36,935/- and oilseeds worth ₹ 13,91,138/-. It is relevant to state at this stage that the proceedings under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... transported outside the State and even as per material available with the respondents the sale was in the State of West Bengal and not in the State of Uttar Pradesh. It is further submitted that it is on the basis of the statement given by the dealer in Calcutta as well as the report of the S.I.B. that the assessment process were re-opened. The revisionists had questioned the fact that the said transaction, if any, would be inter state sale rather than intra-state sale. The first appellate authority has also rejected the contention of the revisionist and he has not accepted the contention of the revisionist only on the basis of the fact that the revisionist could not produce any material to show that he has sold the goods in Calcutta. H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as been mentioned by the counsel for the revisionist is that at best the said transaction would be inter state sale rather than intra state sale. He submits that the entire proceedings are based on a solitary material/evidence/ the report of S.I.B. If the report of S.I.B. is to be believed than the transaction was an inter state sale, the goods emanating from Allahabad were to be sold in Calcutta. I find merit in the submissions of counsel for the revisionist. It is undisputed that the report of S.I.B. clearly indicates that the goods were sold in Calcutta and the provisions of the Act, 1956 would be applicable rather than provisions of the Act, 1948. The Revenue itself has relied upon the report of S.I.B. and proceeded against the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
