Skip to content


Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Mewalal Kewal Kishore - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectSales Tax
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Case NumberS.T.R. No. 391 of 1973
Judge
Reported in[1976]38STC551(All)
AppellantCommissioner of Sales Tax
RespondentMewalal Kewal Kishore
Appellant AdvocateThe Standing Counsel
Respondent AdvocateS.N. Tandon and ;Rajesh Tandon, Advs.
Excerpt:
- - thereafter the railway receipts were endorsed in favour of the u. it would clearly be an inter-state sale. in any event, inasmuch as the railway receipts were endorsed after the goods had been handed over to the railway, and there is nothing to indicate that the goods had not moved, it would be a case covered by section 3(b) of the central sales tax act......whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, jhe sales made by the assessee were not inter-state sales as to attract tax under the u. p. sales tax act ?2. the assessment relates to the year 1960-61, and the dealer carried on the business in foodgrains. the turnover fixed for the year was rs. 11,227.59, which was taxed at 7 per cent on the ground that it was an inter-state sale. the contention of the dealer on the contrary was that it should have been taxed at 1 per cent as it was a sale effected in u. p.3. the modus operandi in which the transactions were effected was this. the dealer at the instance of the parties in u. p., used to send foodgrains outside u. p. the railway receipts were made up in the name of the dealer. thereafter the railway receipts were endorsed in.....
Judgment:

C.S.P. Singh, J.

1. The Additional Revising Authority, Allahabad Range, Allahabad, has under Section 11(3) of the U. P. Sales Tax Act, referred the following question of law for the opinion of this court:

Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, Jhe sales made by the assessee were not inter-State sales as to attract tax under the U. P. Sales Tax Act ?

2. The assessment relates to the year 1960-61, and the dealer carried on the business in foodgrains. The turnover fixed for the year was Rs. 11,227.59, which was taxed at 7 per cent on the ground that it was an inter-State sale. The contention of the dealer on the contrary was that it should have been taxed at 1 per cent as it was a sale effected in U. P.

3. The modus operandi in which the transactions were effected was this. The dealer at the instance of the parties in U. P., used to send foodgrains outside U. P. The railway receipts were made up in the name of the dealer. Thereafter the railway receipts were endorsed in favour of the U. P. buyers and the price received in U. P. These transactions were commonly known in the business circle as bilti cut transactions. The Judge (Revisions) has held that all the ingredients of sale had taken place inside U. P. and, therefore, the same should have been taxed at 1 per cent and not at 7 per cent.

4. The matter appears to be concluded by the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mewa Lai Kewal Kishore v. Commissioner of Sales Tax 1973 U.P.T.C. 588. Shri Tandon, appearing on behalf of the assessee, drew our attention to an earlier decision of this court in Bansi Lai Ram Swaroop v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, S.T.R. No. 195 of 1957 decided on 20th November, 1962 (Allahabad High Court). That case related to the assessment for the year 1949-50 before the Central Sales Tax Act was passed. After the promulgation of the Central Sales Tax Act, if the contract of sale occasions the movement of the goods or the title to the goods passes while they are in movement from one State to another, the sale is not a local sale but an inter-State sale. In the present case, inasmuch as the goods were sent after the dealer had contracted with the U. P. parties for despatch of goods outside U. P. it would clearly be an inter-State sale. In any event, inasmuch as the railway receipts were endorsed after the goods had been handed over to the railway, and there is nothing to indicate that the goods had not moved, it would be a case covered by Section 3(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act.

5. We, therefore, answer the question in the negative in favour of the department and against the assessee. The department is entitled to its costs, which we assess at Rs. 100.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //