TMI Blog1976 (2) TMI 159X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed at Bombay and on 30th November, 1956, the same were cleared from the customs. On 18th December, 1956, the respondents made out a bill on M/s. Beharilal Dewanchand, Bombay, in regard to the said goods for Rs. 29,585-11-0 (hereinafter referred to as "the said amount"). This bill shows that the said goods were sold under K and N forms and that delivery of the said goods was effected. In their assessment for the period 1st April, 1956, to 31st March, 1957, the said amount was shown by the respondent-assessees in their total turnover, but a deduction or exemption was claimed in respect thereof under the provisions of section 8(b) and the proviso (1) to section 9 of the said Act. A perusal of the provisions of section 8(b) and the said proviso ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant Commissioner, and the revision application preferred by the respondents to the Deputy Commissioner was dismissed. In that revision application also the same contention was taken up by the respondents. The respondents then went by way of further revision to the Sales Tax Tribunal in which they repeated the same contention but took up a further alternative contention that the sale resulting in the receipt of the said amount by the respondents was a sale outside the State and was, therefore, not liable to tax under the said Act. The Tribunal upheld this alternative contention of the respondents, that the sale was an outside State sale, on consideration of a letter from the Allahabad Bank Limited, Amritsar, to the respondents dated 13th Jul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t all why the respondents should have requested M/s. Beharilal Dewanchand of Bombay to sign and hand over the K and N forms to the respondents or why M/s. Beharilal Dewanchand of Bombay should have done so. The case of the respondents right up to the stage of the Tribunal never was that the sale in question was a sale outside the State. These documents clearly show, prima facie, that the said amount represented the sale proceeds of the said goods which were sold by the respondents to the said M/s. Beharilal Dewanchand in Bombay. This is further supported by the bill dated 18th December, 1956, drawn by the respondents on the firm of M/s. Beharilal Dewanchand at Bombay. This bill contains a statement "Goods delivered", which would show that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs to us that the Tribunal was in error in holding that the sales resulting in the receipt of the said amount of Rs. 29,585-11-0 had taken place outside the State. Mr. Patil, the learned counsel for the respondents, urged that we should not interfere with the conclusion of the Tribunal as that conclusion had been arrived at by the Tribunal by drawing certain inferences from the documents on record and it was, according to him, a conclusion of fact, which was not liable to be interfered with in this reference. We are unable to accept this submission. It is settled law that an assessee or the department can contend in a tax reference that an inference has been drawn by the Tribunal on considering inadmissible evidence or after excluding adm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
