9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 746X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate Tribunal. 2. The Writ Petitioner is a Dealer of some Medicine and they were the main Stockist at Tamilnadu and was having Branch at Pondicherry. During the relevant Assessment Years viz., 1994-95 and 1995-96, certain Sales have been effected through the Pondicherry Branch and those Sales have been subjected to tax as if it is Inter- State Sales from Tamilnadu directly through the branch of the Assessee at Pondicherry. Accordingly the Assessment Order was passed by the Assessing Authority by order dated 30.9.1999 as against which the Assessee/Dealer preferred Appeal before the first Appellate Authority, who, by order dated 9.5.2000, reversed such Assessment Order by giving reasons. Aggrieved over the said order of the first Appellate Au ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... late Authority, without having taken into account the said facts in proper perspective, reversed the said Assessment Order, however, the Tribunal in the impugned order has taken into account such facts in a proper perspective. In fact in para 9 of the said impugned order, the Tribunal has concluded that the Madras Office of the Respondent/ Dealer received orders from the customers in Pondicherry through its Branch at Pondicherry and has transferred the goods pursuant to those orders for two Assessment Years, which establishes an inextricable link between the movement of goods and the prior orders received from the customers. The learned counsel relied upon the said findings given by the Tribunal heavily. For the sake of convenience, such fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t Commissioner is wrong in set-asiding the turnover of Rs. 6,33,486/- and Rs. 4,36,396/- in both the appeals and accordingly we set-aside the orders of learned Appellate Assistant Commissioner and restore the orders of assessing officer in this regard" 6. We have given our anxious consideration to the said submissions made by the learned Government Advocate appearing for the Revenue and perused the materials placed before us. 7. Though the Assessing Authority has taken a view that the Sale that had taken place at Pondicherry is Inter-State Sales based on the alleged admission made by the Assessee, the said fact has been considered by the first Appellate Authority where, the first Appellate Authority has found the factual matrix by stating ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... customers from whom advances have been collected by their representatives. Further the despatches from the Head Offices were on a routine basis to replenish the stock of the branch and they were not exactly as per the quantity required by the customers and supplied by the Pondy branch. Thus it cannot be said that the despatch of the goods from the Madras Head Office is against specific orders placed by customers from whom the advances have been collected. Supplies were made from the sufficient stock held by the Pondy Branch on the date of sale. Therefore the assessing authority is not justified in treating the sales made by the branch in which advances have been collected from customers as direct sales by the Head Office at Madras in purs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
