Inter-State sale and trade tax liability turn on evidence, cross-examination rights, and the statutory charging scheme.

Direct movement of goods from consignors to a Goa dealer under a commission arrangement, supported by declaration forms, check-post records and stock entries, was treated as insufficient to show an inter-State sale by the assessee; on that footing, no liability arose under the Central Sales Tax Act. On the trade tax issue, the Tribunal's factual findings were held to be evidence-based and not perverse, and adverse statements could not be used without cross-examination. The statutory scheme of section 3-D also placed liability on the selling dealer in the relevant circumstances, not on the assessee as the alleged first purchaser. The revisions therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the goods were inter-State sales by the assessee so as to attract tax under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. (ii) Whether the assessee was liable to trade tax under section 3-D of the U.P. Trade Tax Act on the alleged purchases, and whether the Tribunal was justified in interfering with the remand and assessment findings.

Issue (i): Whether the goods were inter-State sales by the assessee so as to attract tax under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.

Analysis: The decisive materials before the Tribunal showed that the goods moved directly from the consignors to the Goa dealer under a commission arrangement, supported by the agreement, the statutory declaration forms, the Goa assessment order, the check-post documents, and the stock register entries. The finding that no delivery was taken by the assessee in Uttar Pradesh was also reinforced by the absence of reliable material linking the assessee to the alleged movement of goods. The Court further held that, even on the Revenue's own case, there was no inter-State sale by the assessee because the transaction was only between the consignor and the consignee under the consignment arrangement.

Conclusion: No liability under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 arose against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the assessee was liable to trade tax under section 3-D of the U.P. Trade Tax Act on the alleged purchases, and whether the Tribunal was justified in interfering with the remand and assessment findings.

Analysis: The Tribunal's findings were based on evidence and could not be termed perverse. The demand for cross-examination of the persons whose statements were relied upon had been denied, and the adverse material could not therefore be used against the assessee. The Court also held that, on the statutory scheme of section 3-D, where the seller of the notified commodity was liable upon sales to an unregistered dealer and the prescribed declaration forms were not obtained, the tax liability would fall on the selling dealer and not on the assessee as alleged first purchaser. The Court found no legal basis to interfere with the Tribunal's factual conclusions.

Conclusion: The assessee was not liable to trade tax under section 3-D of the U.P. Trade Tax Act.

Final Conclusion: The revisions failed because the Tribunal's conclusions were supported by material on record and the statutory liability was not fastened on the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: A finding of fact by the final fact-finding authority will not be interfered with unless it is perverse or unsupported by evidence, and where statutory declaration requirements are not fulfilled the tax liability falls in accordance with the scheme of the charging provision, not on an assessee against whom no reliable evidence of the taxable transaction exists.

---