COMMISSIONER OF TRADE TAX Vs. AGRAWAL TRADING COMPANY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two revisions under Section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') are directed against the order of Tribunal dated January 31, 2000 relating to the assessment year 1994 -95 under the U.P. Trade Tax Act as well as under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 respectively.

(2.) HEARD learned Standing Counsel.

(3.) LEARNED Standing Counsel submitted that the Tribunal has accepted the claim of the dealer in respect of the purchases made for and on behalf of ex -U.P. principal for Rs. 16,84,197.74 and has deleted the tax levied under Section 3D(1) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act as well as under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. He submitted that the dealer had purchased and dispatched the same outside the State of U.P. Dealer had admitted liability of tax on the aforesaid amount treating the said purchases on his own account in the return, but during the assessment proceedings, dealer claimed that the purchases were made for and on behalf of ex -U.P. principal and after the purchases, the same were dispatched outside the State of U.P. at the destination of ex -U.P. principal. The assessing authority rejected the claim of the dealer on the ground that the dealer had not given details that when the goods were purchased and thereafter when dispatched, the purchases have also not been got verified from VIR, at the time of making purchases, it was not disclosed to the farmers that the purchases were being made for and on behalf of ex -U.P. principal. The first appellate authority confirmed the order of the assessing authority, but the Tribunal has accepted the claim without examining the nature of transactions and without considering the various objections taken by the assessing authority for rejecting the claim of the dealer. He submitted that the Tribunal has only referred that a chart was submitted before the first appellate authority giving the details that on which date, goods were purchased and when they were dispatched. Details of the chart have not been referred. He submitted that as per the decision of the apex court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Bakhtawar Lal Kailash Chand Arhti reported in [1992] 87 STC 196 : [1992] UPTC 971, it has to be examined whether the purchases have been made on the basis of direction or instructions of ex -U.P. principal and after the purchases, they were dispatched outside the State of U.P. and both the purchases and dispatches were co -related to each other. He submitted that without examining the transactions in the light of law laid down by the apex court, the Tribunal has illegally accepted the plea of the dealer in respect of the claim of purchases for and on behalf of ex -U.P. principal.