GUPTA BROTHERS Vs. COMMISSIONER SALES TAX UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - I agree with the answer proposed by my brother Gulati, J., to the question referred in this case.

(2.) THE facts are not clearly set out in the statement of the case. They appear, however, from the assessment orders, the appellate orders and the revisional orders and have been summarised by my learned brother. There is nothing to show that during the submissions made on the hearing of the revision applications before the Additional Judge (Revisions) Sales Tax, either party relied on a different version of the facts from those appearing in the respective assessment orders and appellate orders. It seems to me that upon those facts the only reasonable conclusion is that there was a sale by Caltex Limited to the assessee as a result of which kerosene oil moved from outside Uttar Pradesh into the State and that kerosene oil was sold by the assessee. The contention for the assessee cannot be accepted that it is Caltex Limited which imported the kerosene oil into Uttar Pradesh and then sold it to the assessee. There was a prior contract of sale between the company and the assessee and in consequence of it the kerosene oil moved into the State of Uttar Pradesh. It may be that property in the goods passed in Uttar Pradesh from the company to the assessee. But it is now settled law that for the purpose of deciding whether the movement of goods from one State to another has taken place as a covenant or incident of the contract of sale the question whether property passes in one State or the other is immaterial. It is sufficient that there is a contract of sale and as a covenant or an incident of that contract there is a movement of goods from one State to another. The decision of this court in Bhika Mal Musaddi Lal v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. ([1963] 14 S.T.C. 770), relied on by the assessee does not help the assessee at all. That case does not decide that, if there is a contract of sale and consequent upon such contract goods cross from one State to another, the purchaser under that contract is not an importer. The court expressly pointed out :

(3.) THERE is no dispute about the turnover of the goods purchased by the assessee from Agra depot of the company. The dispute only relates to the turnover of kerosene imported from outside Uttar Pradesh. The reference to diesel oil in the question referred by the Judge (Revisions) is superfluous because the relevant notification referred to below relates only to kerosene oil.