TMI Blog1978 (11) TMI 129X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tax Act, 1956. In the course of the assessment, the Sales Tax Officer considered certain transactions amounting to Rs. 8,77,064 as inter-State sales, which, according to the assessee, were consignment transactions. The Sales Tax Officer, therefore, levied tax thereon at the rate of 10 per cent under the Central Act. The assessee, therefore, carried the matter in appeal before the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax contending, inter alia, that the transactions in question were consignment sales and not inter-State sales as held by the Sales Tax Officer. In support of this contention, the assessee had produced the sale list of the various transactions in question and affidavits of the persons from Rajasthan, except that of M/s. Lamipat Pahadia to whom the goods were despatched. The assessee also produced entries from its trading books to show that the transactions in question were not inter-State sales. The Assistant Commissioner rejected the contention as he was not satisfied by the evidence produced in support thereof with the result that the appeal was dismissed. The assessee, therefore, carried the matter in further appeal before the Gujarat Sales Tax Tribunal. The Tribunal reap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing that the impugned purchases were effected by the respondents outside the State of Bombay and that they were not inside the State of Bombay as per explanation to article 286(1)(a) of the Constitution of India?" The High Court answered the first question in the negative and held that the Tribunal was not justified in law in holding that the said transactions were not purchases within the meaning of section 2(13) of the 1953 Act. The second question was not answered by the High Court since it found itself unable to answer it on the material available on the record. On the concession of the parties, the High Court remanded the matter to the Tribunal with the direction that the Tribunal should decide afresh, according to law, after giving the parties an opportunity to adduce evidence. In appeal, the Supreme Court, speaking through Shah, J., held that the High Court could, under section 34(4), refer the case to the Tribunal to make such additions thereto or alterations therein, but the High Court could not sit in appeal over the judgment of the Tribunal, the jurisdiction with which the Act does not invest the High Court. In Damodar Valley Corporation v. State of Bihar[1961] 12 S.T. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any reason. The same view has been expressed by this court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Sri Meenakshi Mills Ltd.[1967] 63 I.T.R. 609 (S.C.). We are therefore of the opinion that the High Court was in error in embarking upon a reappraisal of the evidence before the Appellate Tribunal and in setting aside the finding of fact of the Appellate Tribunal that the termination of the managing agency agreement was not a bona fide transaction and the same was done for an improper or oblique purpose." Mr. Mody, the learned Advocate appearing for the assessee, therefore, urged, in the first place, that the question whether the impugned transactions were inter-State sales or not was a mixed question of law and fact and, though the finding of the Tribunal on the facts found was final, its decision as to the legal effect of those findings is a question of law, which can be reviewed by this Court. In support of this contention, Mr. Mody relied on the legal position summed up by the Supreme Court as emerging on consideration of the various authorities in Sree Meenakshi Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax[1957] 31 I.T.R. 28 (S.C.).and, more particularly, relied on principle No. (2), fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... seized item No. 5, which is an exercise book, considered conjointly with the other facts and circumstances appearing in the case. In view of the fact that this overwhelming evidence supported by circumstances tilting in favour of the conclusion that the transactions are inter-State sales, the affidavits of the so-called commission agents of Rajasthan have little evidentiary value and, therefore, we are inclined to discard them and we think that the sales tax authorities were also right in doing so. The only difference in the view which we take and the view taken by the sales tax authorities is, if we may mention so, that the sales tax authorities have come to a conclusion that the movement of the goods was occasioned as a result of the sales effected by the appellant to the person of Rajasthan, who is, according to the appellant, his commission agent, whereas our inference and conclusion is that the sales were effected by the appellant to some person of Rajkot and that as a result of such sales the goods were moved from this State to the State of Rajasthan." In the present case, we do not agree with the learned Advocate for the assessee that the question involved is a mixed que ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
