9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (3) TMI 818X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te authority. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionist that for the assessment year 1983-84 he is a registered dealer in foodgrains and oilseeds and he had made consignment sale of foodgrains and oilseeds outside the State of Uttar Pradesh of foodgrains worth Rs. 16,36,935/- and oilseeds worth Rs. 13,91,138/-. The petitioner did not paid any tax liability in view of the fact that transaction was covered under Section 6-A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (in short 'the Act, 1956') and Form-F was duly issued under the Act, 1956 by the person to whom the goods were sent. The assessment proceedings were culminated. The respondents received certain information in respect of the said transaction which involved ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he revisionist has never sent the goods to him and in fact he had transported the goods himself and sold goods thereafter. He further stated that he had taken certain commission on the said transaction and issued Form-F in favour of the revisionist. It has been vehemently urged that on the basis of the said report of the S.I.B., the proceeding under Section 21 of the Act, 1948 were initiated by the respondents. It is clear from the said report that the goods were transported outside the State and even as per material available with the respondents the sale was in the State of West Bengal and not in the State of Uttar Pradesh. It is further submitted that it is on the basis of the statement given by the dealer in Calcutta as well as the re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... subsequent developments and report submitted by the S.I.B. The said report of S.I.B clearly indicated that the revisionists had in fact sold the goods in question in Calcutta himself and that the provisions of Section 6-A of the Act, 1956 were not applicable in this case. In this view of the matter, the authorities were of the view that there was clear evasion of tax and second appellate order was passed. The only defect with the assessment order as has been mentioned by the counsel for the revisionist is that at best the said transaction would be inter state sale rather than intra state sale. He submits that the entire proceedings are based on a solitary material/evidence/ the report of S.I.B. If the report of S.I.B. is to be believed t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
