1983 (12) TMI 272

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....assessee, the purchases made from these two persons are not the first purchases in this State and therefore, the assessee is not liable to pay the purchase tax on her purchase of rubber. This claim of the assessee for exemption on the ground that the turnover represents second purchases of rubber inside the State, was rejected by the assessing authority on the ground that the two persons, Thompson and Jacob, are merely bill traders who lend their names without actually handling the goods and therefore, the assessee should be taken to be the first purchaser of rubber in this State. Aggrieved by the order of the assessing authority, the assessee went before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner also held t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....021 and R.C. 521145 respectively. They have registered themselves as dealers in rubber before the Rubber Board and their Rubber Board licences and registration certificates were also in force. The sale bills issued by the said two persons to the assessee contained Rubber Board licence number, registration certificate number, quantity, rate and the amount and also a certificate to the effect that the goods have already suffered tax in this State at the stage of the first sale. Before the Tribunal, the Revenue did not deny the fact that the two dealers, Thompson and Jacob, were in existence and they were registered dealers and the only contention of the Revenue was that the said dealers have purchased rubber from unknown sources. The Tribunal....