Importer liability under sales tax law requires proof of first sale after import, not merely untraceable purchasers.

Sales tax liability under rule 2(d-1)(c) could arise only if the dealer was shown, on evidence, to have made the first sale after goods were imported into Uttar Pradesh. The factual record showed orders routed through brokers to the head office and sugar factory, but there was no finding that the dealer took delivery of the goods or retired the railway receipts. The revisional view that the dealer was the first seller rested only on the fact that some purchasers were untraceable, which was insufficient to establish importer status. Sales tax could not therefore be fastened merely because the purported buyers were not traceable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee was an importer liable to sales tax on sales of sugar to untraceable dealers in Uttar Pradesh.

Analysis: Liability under rule 2(d-1)(c) arose only if the assessee had made the first sale after the goods were imported into Uttar Pradesh. The accepted factual position was that orders were received through brokers and forwarded to the head office and then to the sugar factory, but there was no finding that the assessee had taken delivery of the goods or retired the railway receipts. The revisional finding that the assessee was the first seller was unsupported by any material and rested only on the circumstance that some purchasers were untraceable. Untraceability of the purchasers did not by itself establish that the assessee made the first sale after import.

Conclusion: The assessee was not shown to be an importer within rule 2(d-1)(c), and sales tax could not be fastened on it merely because some U.P. purchasers were not traceable.

Ratio Decidendi: A dealer can be treated as an importer under rule 2(d-1)(c) only on a finding, supported by evidence, that it made the first sale after import; such liability cannot be inferred merely from the non-traceability of the purported purchasers.

---