TMI Blog2011 (4) TMI 1252X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dealer or sole dealer. The contention of the learned advocate for the petitioner that one more dealer is also dealing, the proviso is not attracted is an incorrect approach. In view of the section covering the specified class of the transactions, the material particulars of the transactions of the petitioner, fall within the ambit of the section as the petitioner is dealing with the RAJPHOS, as an agent of the manufacturer M/s. Rajasthan State Mines and Minerals Limited. "Exclusively used" cannot be given a meaning according to geographical boundaries. Exclusively has to be understood authorising the one, excluding other or a group. Court holds that there is no merit in the submission of the learned advocate for the petitioner, so it is re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... PHOS' (18-20 per cent fertilizer grade) and both are first sales. However, the purchase of these goods by the assessee is less than ₹ 896 whereas a first dealer the same goods are sold at ₹ 896. Therefore on the profit margin at 43 per cent the State has lost revenue. Therefore, it is exclusively branded goods. Therefore, the assessee cannot say that they are not liable to pay tax on the same premise. The assessee has increased the profit margin on which the State have got tax at first sale point. The case of the petitioner is, that it is one of the distributor for M/s. Rajasthan State Mines and Minerals Limited in respect of a product/goods named as RAJPHOS , a rock phosphate used as fertilizer. The other distributor i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w that arises for our consideration is: Whether in the facts, figures and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in law, sustaining the finding of the first appellate authority that sole distributor does not mean one person in the State and there may be several number of sole distributors for the same company and all such distributors are coming under the purview of the sixth proviso to section 5(3)(a) of the said Act. The proviso to section 5(3)(a) reads as follows: Provided also that where goods are sold, under a brand name by the trade mark holder or the brand name holder or any other dealer having the right as proprietor or otherwise to use the said name or trade mark either directly or through another on his o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the transactions of the petitioner, fall within the ambit of the section as the petitioner is dealing with the RAJPHOS, as an agent of the manufacturer M/s. Rajasthan State Mines and Minerals Limited. Exclusively used cannot be given a meaning according to geographical boundaries. Exclusively has to be understood authorising the one, excluding other or a group. Court holds that there is no merit in the submission of the learned advocate for the petitioner, so it is rejected. Subject can be analysed from yet another angle also. Transaction illustrated supra at para 2, that the proviso intended is to cover a separate category of transactions, on this ground also the submission of advocate for petitioner is rejected. In the light of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
