TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 257X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... / or authenticity of the documents, which were produced before the Dy. Comm., which form the bedrock of passing of the order by the said appellate authority. Further the findings based on those documents are essentially findings of fact and the absence of pre-existing contract of sale between the assessee and the Gulburga firm has been the case throughout i.e. even the A.O. has failed to point out any such pre-existing contract, in absence whereof the sale cannot be treated as inter-State sale - Decided against Revenue. - S. B. Sales Tax Revision Petition No. 256/2005 - - - Dated:- 23-9-2013 - Arun Bhansali,JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr. D. K. Godara for Mr. V.K. Mathur For the Respondent : Mr. Varun Singhvi for Mr.Dinesh Mehta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , in pursuance to a pre-existing contract of sale, the same cannot be termed as an inter-State sale and allowed the appeal filed by the assessee. Aggrieved the Department went in appeal before the Tax Board. After hearing the parties, the Tax Board observed thus : I have carefully considered all the arguments of both the learned counsel and have also gone through all the facts available on the record of this Case. I have also studied with due regards the rulings cited by the learned counsel while arguing his case before me. The only point that has been raised before me for consideration is whether the goods worth Rs. 12,18,000/- shown to have been depot transferred by the respondents were directly supplied by them to M/s City General S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -existing contract of sale between the respondents and the Gulburga firm. In these circumstances, in my view, learned AA was not jusitified simply on the basis of his presumptions in treating Depot Transfer of the goods in question as inter-State sale of the respondents for the purpose of levying tax under the Act. All the rulings cited by the learned counsel for the respondents adequately support the case of the respondents and, therefore, learned DC (Appeals) does not seem to have committed any error in setting aside illegal levy of tax in this case contrary to facts as well as the law. It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that from a bare look at the order passed by the A.O., it is apparent that goods moved from Raja ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id findings recorded by the Dy. Comm. though questioned by the Department have been upheld by the Tax Board by its impugned judgment dated 16.10.2003 as noticed here-in-before. A perusal of the judgment dated 16.10.2003 passed by the Tax Board would reveal that the petitioner Department has not questioned the validity and / or authenticity of the documents, which were produced before the Dy. Comm., which form the bedrock of passing of the order by the said appellate authority. Further the findings based on those documents are essentially findings of fact and the absence of pre-existing contract of sale between the assessee and the Gulburga firm has been the case throughout i.e. even the A.O. has failed to point out any such pre-existing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
