AGARWAL TRADING COMPANY Vs. COMMISSIONER OF TRADE TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present revision is directed against the order dated March 28, 1994 passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal, Ghaziabad, in Second Appeal No. 263 of 1992.

(2.) RAISING a short controversy present revision has been filed for the assessment year 1986 -87. The applicant, a commission agent deals in the food grains, tilhan, etc. Its books of account have been accepted. The only controversy involved in the present case is regarding the taxability of the turnover of food grains amounting to Rs. 16,75,196.81 alleged to have purchased on behalf of ex U.P. principal. The authorities below have negatived the claim of the applicant that these purchases were made on behalf of ex U.P. principal and were inter -State purchase and hence were exempt under Section 3(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The ground for not granting exemption as claimed by the dealer -applicant is, that these purchases were not made, on the facts of the present case, on behalf of ex U.P. principal. The question which fall for determination, therefore, is as to whether these purchases on the facts of the present case can be said to have been made on behalf of ex U.P. principal or not.

(3.) THE assessing authority has found that the goods were delivered in State of U.P. and admittedly form XXX -C/1 was issued by it and accepted its liability being the first purchaser in State of U.P. It rejected the explanation of the dealer that the goods were not delivered in the State of U.P. This part of the assessment order was confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Trade Tax by his order dated January 31, 1992. He was of the opinion that since the form XXX -C/1 was issued and the goods were delivered in U.P., it cannot be said that purchases were made in the course of inter -State purchases. The Tribunal has also confirmed the aforesaid finding. It has also placed reliance on ground No. 4 of the memo of appeal, which reads as under: Because it is not necessary to produce the purchase order because the purchasers of ex U.P. came themselves and purchased grains through our commission agency in their presence and transported the grains themselves. No doubt the appellant had to assist them in procuring the truck, etc.