TMI Blog2008 (8) TMI 868X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of inter-State purchases. The dealer-opposite party has failed to establish that the purchase of goods and dispatch outside State of U.P., were parts of the same transaction. In this regard, the Tribunal has not set aside the contrary findings recorded by the two authorities below it. Purchase orders may be oral but nonetheless the dealer is required to maintain a record of such orders to establish that it made the purchases as agent on behalf of a particular principal and the purchased goods have been dispatched to the principal at the earliest opportunity. Thus the order of the Tribunal is indefensible and is liable to be set aside. Both the revisions succeed and are allowed and the common order of the Tribunal is set aside. - 1088, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing that tangoon is a cattle feed? No argument was advanced by the learned standing counsel with regard to question No. 2, therefore, it is left undecided. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The Tribunal has proceeded to hold that the transaction in question relates to purchases on behalf of ex-U. P. principals in the course of inter-State purchases on the following factors: 1.. The article in question was purchased within the State of U.P., from farmers and the names of the ex-U.P. traders have been mentioned in 6R. 2.. The goods were supplied at the same price at which they were purchased from the farmers and only commission was charged by the dealer. The contention of the learned standing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thority. The Tribunal without addressing the said findings has reversed the assessment order. It was obligatory for the Tribunal to have examined the findings recorded by the authorities below to it before reversing them. Mere mention of names and addresses of the purchasing dealer in form 6R or the movement of goods outside the State of U.P., after some time is not sufficient to hold that the transaction in question is inter-State transaction of purchase. What is the nature of interState purchases has been explained by the apex court in Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Bakhtawar Lal Kailash Chand Arhti [1992] 87 STC 196; [1992] UPTC 971. In this case it was laid down by the Supreme Court that the very nature of inter-State purchases is that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is only a question of application of these principles to the facts found in each case. The Tribunal in the case on hand without recording any finding that the dispatch of goods was occasioned by and was a result of the purchase has committed illegality in holding the said transaction as inter-State purchases on behalf of ex-U.P. principals. Mere charging of commission in the bills does not amount that the purchases were made in commission agency on behalf of ex-U.P. principals, nor the mentioning of name of the purchasing dealer situate outside the State of U.P., in 6R will be sufficient to draw an inference that the purchases were made in the course of inter-State purchases. In this very case, the Supreme Court has held that if there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
