9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (8) TMI 868X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... year 1987-88 and Rs. 2,87,494 relating to the assessment year 1988-89. The contention of the dealer-opposite party was that these purchases were made on behalf of ex-U. P. principals in the course of inter-State purchase. It was not found so by the assessing authority and the first appellate authority as well. The Tribunal, however, by the orders under revision has accepted the aforestated plea of the dealer. The following questions of law have been sought to be raised in these revisions: 1.. Whether the Tribunal was legally justified in holding that the transaction relating to 1,02,944 was a purchase for and on behalf of ex-U.P. principals despite the fact that evidence on record does not indicate that the purchases in question have been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned counsel for the parties and perused the record. While rejecting the case as set out by the dealer the assessing officer noted that the dealer could not produce the purchase order. He has not maintained any record of the orders allegedly given by the ex-U.P. principal for making the purchases. The dealer is also not maintaining any account as to on whose behalf the particular goods were purchased and when they were sent to the person concerned outside the State of U.P. The dealer has not filed the list of farmers from whom the purchases were made and the copies of 6R do not contain the complete names and addresses of the purchasing dealers. It was concluded by the assessing authority that the dealer was not aware at the time of making th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The purchases were made by the respondent as a commission agent on behalf of the ex-U.P., principals and the goods purchased under each of the purchases were duly despatched to such principals. It is found that such despatch took place not later than three days from the date of purchase, as soon as the railway wagon was available. The purchase of goods and their despatch to ex-State principal were parts of the same transaction. The movement of goods from Uttar Pradesh to another State was occasioned by and was the result-or the incident of -the purchase. It was the consequence of the purchase. Such movement of goods, though not proved to have been expressly stated in the contract of sale, was yet held to have been agreed upon between the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e State of U.P. is competent to levy tax on the purchases by such agent. Keeping in view the above principles in mind, coming to the facts of the present case, it would be clear that the Tribunal has committed an error of law in reaching the conclusion that the purchases by the dealer-opposite party were made on behalf of ex-U.P. principals in the course of interState 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 e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
