news round up - Taxmann
news round up - Taxmann
news round up - Taxmann
- TAGS
- news
- round
- taxmann
- taxmann.com
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