COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX Vs. SWADESHI METAL WORKS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These four revisions under Section 11(1) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) have been preferred by the Commissioner of Sales Tax against the order dated 31st August, 1985 passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal,Ghaziabad Bench-II, relating to the assessment years 1978-79, 1979-80, 1980-81 and 1981-82 all under the Central Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Central Act).

(2.) Briefly stated the facts relevant for the decision of these cases are that the respondent assessee is a dealer of iron and steel having its head office at Mandi Shiam Nagar, Bulandshahar and branch office at Delhi. For the assessment years 1978-79, 1979-80 and 1980-81 no inter-State sales were admitted by the respondent-assessee but for the assessment year 1981-82 it disclosed its inter-State sales at Rs. 19,930.50. A survey of the business premises of the assessee was conducted on 31st March, 1982, when some account books and certain other papers were seized. From these documents the assessing authority inferred that the branch transfers shown by the assessee were not actually branch transfers to Delhi office but were inter-State sales exigible to Central sales tax. He, therefore, issued notice under Section 21 of the Act to the assessee-respondent in respect of the first three assessment years in question and after considering the materials the assessing authority rejected the account books under the Central head and enhanced the Central sales in respect of all the four assessment years. In the first appeals filed by the respondent-assessee the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) allowed the appeals in part and reduced the net turnover. The Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P., as well as the assessee both feeling aggrieved against the aforesaid order preferred second appeals before the Tribunal which by the impugned order allowed the appeals of the respondent-assessee but dismissed those of the Revenue.

(3.) I have heard Sri P.K. Jain, learned counsel appearing for the Commissioner of Sales Tax and Sri Bharatji Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-assessee. Mr. Jain urged that the transactions, which have been shown as branch transfers by the respondent-assessee are actually not branch transfers but are inter-State sales exigible to Central sales tax and the Tribunal committed an error in accepting the said transactions as branch transfers. He further urged that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Sakney Steel and Press Works Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer [1986] 60 STC 301 which has been pronounced after the impugned order was passed and which is squarely applicable to the facts of the present cases this Court instead of deciding the cases itself should direct the Tribunal to apply its mind and decide the appeals afresh in the light of the aforesaid decision. Mr. Bharatji Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondent-assessee, on the contrary has vehemently resisted the contention raised on behalf of the Commissioner of Sales Tax and submitted that the facts of the aforesaid Supreme Court case are entirely different from the facts of the present cases and the principle laid down in the aforesaid decision cannot be applied and as such it is not necessary to send the matter back to the Tribunal.