Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1976 (8) TMI 144

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r in mobile oil, tyres, tubes, petrol and other commodities. They also were the selling agents of sugar manufactured by New Sewan Sugar Factory, Bihar. Regular assessment under rule 41(5) of the U.P. Sales Tax Rules were completed for both the years and accounts of the dealers accepted. Subsequently, information was received that the assessee had sold several thousand bags of sugar in Uttar Pradesh in the names of fictitious parties. Proceedings were as such initiated under section 21 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act against the assessee. In these proceedings, the assessing authority held that in the year 1957-58 the assessee had imported 19,836 bags of sugar from New Sewan Sugar Factory, Bihar, and sold them in Uttar Pradesh. It estimated the esc .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... o had placed the orders and the railway receipts along with invoices were sent by the factory to their bankers and intimations sent to the purchasers. The purchasers retired the railway receipts and documents from the bank and took delivery. It was contended that this being so, the assessee was neither an importer, nor a seller of the sugar but merely acted as a commission agent. By a letter to the Sales Tax Officer it was pointed out that intimations sent to the head office at Calcutta were sent only after local sugar brokers had placed orders of various parties for sugar. On the orders being placed advance money used to be deposited by the brokers for the transaction and despatch instructions used to be taken in writing from the brokers o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... uch other State, who made the sale as a direct result of which the goods are imported into Uttar Pradesh; (b) in a case where the goods are imported for the purpose of resale in the same condition as they were imported by the persons who imported them, the dealer who makes the first sale as a direct result of which the goods were imported into Uttar Pradesh; (c) in a case where the goods are imported into Uttar Pradesh otherwise than as a direct result of a sale, the dealer who makes the first sale after such import; and (d) in a case where the goods are imported for the purpose of resale in the same condition as they were imported by the persons who imported them, but the sale of business as a whole was made by the said persons, the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... such liable. The Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) in support of his conclusions also derived support from the fact that it had been admitted by the dealer that in respect of certain parties it had paid tax on the transactions entered into with them. In revisions the modus operandi of the sale as disclosed by the assessee was taken to be correct and it was held that so far as the turnover in respect of sales to genuine U.P. parties was concerned, the assessee-dealer could not be held liable as it were these dealers who had made the first sale after import. In respect of some U.P. dealers introduced by brokers and in whose names the sale notes were prepared and forwarded by the corporation but were not traceable, the Judge (Revisions) he .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... case that the goods were imported into U.P. after the orders for the same had been received from the brokers. We fail to understand as to how the liability can be fastened on the assessee merely because some of the parties who booked the orders were not traceable. The standing counsel urged that the Judge (Revisions) has found as a fact that it was the assessee who had made the first sales, but on a fair reading of the judgment it appears that this conclusion of his is based solely on the fact that he treated the assessee to be an importer under rule 2(d-1)(c) of the Rules, and is not based on any material on the record. Neither the Sales Tax Officer nor the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) gave any finding that the assessee had sold th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates