1990 (9) TMI 325

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e Revenue is the petitioner in both these tax revision cases. The respondent is the same assessee, in both the cases. The revisions relate to the assessment years 1976-77 and 1979-80. The Revenue prays for revising the common order passed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal for the above two years dated 18th December, 1986. The respondent/assessee is a dealer in arecanut. The respondent is also ma .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t/assessee was doing business in arecanut on its own and as a commission agent of nonresident principals. The respondent/assessee purchased the goods and despatched them to the non-resident principals. Arecanut is liable to be taxed in the State on the last purchase point. As soon as the purchases were made and despatched to the non-resident principals, the deal by the assessee was complete. The p .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... judgment dated 26th October, 1989 (Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Ghanshyam Kumar Pasupathinath [1991] 81 STC 63). 3.. Following the earlier decision of this Court in T.R.C. Nos. 127 to 130 of 1989 (Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Ghanshyam Kumar Pasupathinath [1991] 81 STC 63), we are of the view that the decision of the Appellate Tribunal is justified in law, and that the order sought .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X