Intra-State purchase by railway receipt endorsement defeats importer treatment when title passes within the State and records support the transaction.

A purchaser is not treated as an importer merely because goods originate outside the State or freight is paid by it, where the documentary sale is completed by endorsement of the railway receipt and title passes within the State. The High Court accepted the Tribunal's finding that the cement transaction was an intra-State purchase in Uttar Pradesh, supported by purchase bills showing U.P. sales tax payment and unchallenged documentary material. It also held that section 12-A could not require proof of matters not specially within the assessee's knowledge, especially where the relevant records were available with railway and contracting parties, and no referable question of law arose.

---

---

Issues: Whether the cement transactions were intra-State purchases within Uttar Pradesh so as to escape the levy proposed by the Revenue, and whether the Tribunal's finding to that effect gave rise to any question of law warranting interference in revision.

Analysis: The cement was ordered by a party at Ghaziabad, consigned in its name, and sold to the assessee by endorsement of the railway receipt. The assessee produced purchase bills showing payment of U.P. sales tax, and the Revenue did not dispute that assertion. The mere fact that the goods originated from Madras and freight was paid by the assessee was insufficient to treat the assessee as the importer when the documentary sale occurred through transfer of title documents. Section 12-A could not be extended to require the assessee to prove matters not especially within its knowledge, particularly when relevant records were available with the railway authorities and the other contracting parties. On the material on record, the Tribunal's finding that the purchase was within Uttar Pradesh was not shown to be erroneous.

Conclusion: The revisions failed and the assessee succeeded on the question whether the transaction was an intra-State purchase not liable to the disputed tax.

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal's view that the cement was purchased within Uttar Pradesh was upheld, and no referable question of law arose for revision.

Ratio Decidendi: A purchaser is not to be treated as an importer merely because goods originate outside the State or freight is paid by it, where title passes by endorsement of railway receipts after the goods are consigned within the State and the Revenue fails to displace the intra-State character of the transaction.

---