C.S.P. Singh, J.
1. The Additional Judge (Revisions) has, at the instance of the Commissioner of Sales Tax, referred the following question for our opinion :
Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Additional Judge (Revisions) was legally justified to hold that the dealer was not importer when he received back the goods for disposal from another State ?
2. The facts necessary for disposing of this reference fall within a narrow compass. The assessment year involved is 1965-66 in which the assessee purchased 300 tins of vegetable oil at Budaun from Messrs. Mool Chand Raghubir Saran. This transaction was entered into by the assessee on behalf of an ex-U. P. dealer, Messrs. Gopilal Banshidhar, Jaipur, and the entire goods were despatched by the assessee to the Jaipur dealer. The Jaipur dealer, however, after receiving the consignment sent them back to the assessee. The assessee thereafter sold the goods in U. P. In the course of the assessment proceedings, the assessee claimed exemption in respect of these sales on the ground that as he had not imported the goods, the turnover cannot be taxed in his hands. The contention was that inasmuch as vegetable oil was assessable to tax at single point, no tax could be levied on the turnover of these sales. The Sales Tax Officer did not accept this contention and it also did not find favour with the appellate authority.
3. The revisional authority, however, took the view that as the commodity was liable to tax at a single point and as the same goods which the assessee had purchased in U. P. were sold on being redespatched, the turnover was not liable to tax.
4. In view of the finding that the assessee had entered into the first transaction on behalf of the Jaipur dealer when the goods were received back by him, he was an importer in respect of those goods. This is so because the first transaction became final after the assessee had purchased the goods on behalf of the ex-U. P. principals and despatched them to Jaipur. Vegetable oil is taxable either at the point of manufacture or at the point of import under Notification No. ST-3391/X-1012-1962 dated 1st July, 1962. There is no evidence on record to show that tax was paid in respect of the vegetable oil sold by the assessee at the point of manufacture. There is also no evidence on record that Messrs. Mool Chand Raghubir Saran, from whom the assessee had purchased the goods for ex-U. P. principals, had paid tax on this commodity. This being so, as the assessee sold the goods after importing the goods from Jaipur, the impugned turnover was liable to tax in the hands of the assessee as an importer.
5. In view of these conclusions, we answer the question in the negative in favour of the department and against the assessee. As no one has appeared on behalf of the assessee, there will be no order as to costs.