28.01.2013 Views

news round up - Taxmann

news round up - Taxmann

news round up - Taxmann

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

2010] Commissioner, Trade Tax v. K.S. Trading Co. (All.) 193<br />

A<br />

B<br />

C<br />

D<br />

E<br />

F<br />

G<br />

[2010] 1 GST 193 (ALL.)<br />

HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD<br />

Commissioner, Trade Tax, Lucknow<br />

v.<br />

K.S. Trading Co.*<br />

DR. SATISH CHANDRA, J.<br />

TRADE TAX REVISION NO. 146 OF 2008<br />

AUGUST 21, 2009<br />

INTER-STATE PURCHASE - Charge of tax - Assessment year 1998-99 -<br />

Assessee claimed to be a commission agent for inter-State purchase and<br />

sale of agricultural produce - Revenue authorities did not accept said<br />

claim because there was neither any written contract or appointment<br />

agreement between parties nor were there addresses of farmers -<br />

However, in gate pass of Mandi Samiti, quantity of goods was mentioned<br />

- Assessee also maintained builty and dispatch numbers evidencing<br />

transport, wherein address of recipient was also available - Whether, in<br />

age of electronic era, no formal contract is required and a telephonic<br />

contract is sufficient and, therefore, on facts of instant case, it was to be<br />

held that assessee was a commission agent making purchases for ex-U.P.<br />

principals - Held, yes [Section 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax Act,<br />

1948]<br />

FACTS<br />

The assessee was a commission agent for the purchase and sales of<br />

different agricultural produce. The assessee made the purchases for ex-<br />

U.P. principals on commission basis. The Assessing Officer found that no<br />

contract whatsoever had been entered into with the ex-U.P. principals and<br />

they never appointed the assessee as their agent and s<strong>up</strong>ply orders were<br />

made only on the basis of the alleged telephonic calls which could not be<br />

ascertained. The Assessing Officer also observed that the purchases from<br />

the farmers were not verifiable as the full addresses of the farmers were<br />

not given. The Assessing Officer refused to treat the said transactions as<br />

inter-State purchases. The Assessing Officer observed that the purchases<br />

were made for self so he levied the tax which was restricted by the first<br />

appellate authority. On second appeal, the Tribunal accepted the plea of<br />

the assessee by observing that it had sent its goods outside U.P.<br />

On revision :<br />

*In favour of assessee.<br />

GOODS & SERVICES TAX CASES ❑ JANUARY 20 - FEBRUARY 4, 2010 ◆ 69

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!