Trade tax liability turns on who actually excavated and sold the mineral, and whether tax was already paid by another concern.

Tax under the U.P. Trade Tax Act could not be imposed on the dealer if the assessing authority found that the excavated material was actually excavated and sold by another concern, and tax had already been paid on those transactions. The Tribunal's direction was confined to that factual situation and did not bar assessment of the dealer if it was found to be the real person carrying on the taxable business. The remand for fresh enquiry was therefore treated as legally sustainable, with no basis for interference on the stated facts.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal's direction that no tax should be imposed on the dealer if the excavated material was reflected in the records of another concern and tax had been paid by that concern was legally sustainable.

Analysis: The dispute related to liability under the U.P. Trade Tax Act in respect of materials allegedly excavated from mines. The dealer asserted that it had not itself carried on mining or sold the materials and that the excavation and sale were undertaken by another concern under a power of attorney, which was also paying tax. The assessment orders had been set aside and the matters remanded for fresh enquiry. The Tribunal upheld that remand and only indicated that if the assessing officer found that the other concern had in fact excavated and sold the materials and had paid tax on those transactions, tax should not again be imposed on the dealer. This direction was confined to the stated factual situation and did not prevent action against the dealer if it was found to be the real person carrying on taxable business.

Conclusion: The Tribunal's direction was held to be legally correct and no interference was warranted.

---