RAJESH KUMAR SATISH KUMAR Vs. COMMISSIONER, TRADE TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT revision under Section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is directed against the order of the Tribunal dated June 14, 2007 for the assessment year 2000 -01.

(2.) THE applicant claimed to have made the purchases for Rs. 38,69,729.50 on behalf of four ex -U.P. principals. Out of which, three were claimed to be from Bombay and one from Calcutta. The applicant claimed that such purchases being in the course of inter -State purchases were not liable to tax in view of the decision of the apex court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Bakhtawar Lal Kailash Chand Arhti reported in : [1992]3SCR734 . The assessing authority however rejected the claim on the ground that the dealer was not able to prove that such purchases were made on behalf of ex -U.P. principals and were inter -State purchases. The assessing authority had doubted the existence of the ex -U.P. principals. Being aggrieved by the order, the applicant filed appeal under Section 9 of the Act. The appellate authority had allowed the appeal and remanded back the matter to the assessing officer with the direction to issue notices to the alleged ex -U.P. principals and make the necessary inquiry. In pursuance thereof, the notices were issued to the said ex -U.P. principals on the given addresses. It appears that only one notice to one Bombay party was served and the notices to others were not served. However, the Bombay party to whom the notice was served had also not given any reply.

(3.) HEARD Sri Piyush Agrawal, learned Counsel for the applicant and Sri B. K. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel. Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that the remand of the case is unjustified. He further submitted that the payment through draft was never in dispute and therefore, the direction given by the Tribunal to make the necessary inquiry about the draft is not justified.