Allahabad High Court
M/S Jai Ambe Trading Company, ... vs The Commissioner Of Trade Tax, ... on 27 September, 2013
Bench: Rajes Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 33
Case :- SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 70 of 2003
Applicant :- M/S Jai Ambe Trading Company, South Humayunpur, Gorakhpur
Opposite Party :- The Commissioner Of Trade Tax, U.P. Lko.
Counsel for Applicant :- Piyush Agrawal
Counsel for Opposite Party :- C.S.C.
AND
Case :- SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 71 of 2003
Applicant :- M/S Jai Ambe Trading Company, South Humayunpur, Gorakhpur
Opposite Party :- The Commissioner Of Trade Tax, U.P. Lko.
Counsel for Applicant :- Piyush Agrawal
Counsel for Opposite Party :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Rajes Kumar,J.
These are two revisions against the order of the Tribunal dated 30.10.2002 for the assessment years 1998-99 both under the U.P. Trade Tax Act as well as under the Central Sales Tax Act.
The revisionist claimed that it has made certain purchases on behalf of Ex-U.P. Principals, Pooja Foods Product Patna Bihar and S/s Danapur Flour Mills Nasirganj Patna Bihar as their agent. After making purchases, the necessary entries were made in the books of account and the goods had been dispatched at the destination of the Ex-U.P. Principals outside the State of U.P. and as such the purchases were in the course of inter-state purchases under the U.P. Trade Tax Act as well as the Central Sales Tax Act. The assessing authority found that on inquiry made by the SIB both the aforesaid parties have denied to have appointed the revisionist or any other person as their agent to make purchases on their behalf and, therefore, the claim of the revisionist has been rejected. The appeal filed against the assessment order has been rejected and the second appeal filed by the revisionist so far as the said transaction is concerned has also been rejected.
Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the statements of the Directors of the aforesaid companies were made in respect of other concerns and not in respect of the revisionist inasmuch as no opportunity has been given to cross-examination of such persons.
I do not find substance in the argument of learned counsel for the revisionist.
Admittedly the disputed purchases were made within the State of U.P. and have been dispatched outside the State of U.P. The goods, which were purchased by the revisionist, were liable to tax at the point of first purchase under the notification issued under Section 3-D of the U.P. Trade Tax Act. If the revisionist was claiming exemption on such purchases and the dispatch of the goods outside the State of U.P. other than in the course of inter-state sales, the burden lies upon the assessee to prove that purchases were made on behalf of Ex-U.P. Principals in pursuance of the contract/order of the Ex-U.P. Principals and after making the purchases, the goods had been dispatched at the destination of Ex-U.P. Principals, not as a result of sale. Admittedly, the copy of the contract has not been produced in respect of the aforesaid transactions. Even written orders have also not been produced. On inquiry being made from Pooja Foods Product Patna Bihar and S/s Danapur Flour Mills Nasirganj Patna Bihar, they have categorically stated that they have not appointed any person as their agent to make the purchases on their behalf. When such material was confronted to the revisionist, it was open to the revisionist to adduce evidence in their support, but no such evidence has been produced. Neither any affidavit of the alleged parties have been filed nor they have been produced by them to dispute their statements.
In the circumstances, I am of the view that the revisionist failed to prove that such purchases were made on behalf of Ex-U.P. Principals in the course of inter-state purchases.
In view of the above, I do not find any error in the impugned order which requires interference. In the result, both the revisions fail and are dismissed.
Order Date :- 27.9.2013
OP
