TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1989 (1) TMI 344
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....J.-The Revenue is the revision-petitioner in these revisions. In the first four revisions, the assessee is common. In T.R.C. No. 139 of 1988, the assessee is a different person. The question that arises for consideration is the same. The matter relates to the assessment years 1979-80, 1980-81, 1981-82 and 1982-83. The respondents/assessees are dealers in manure. The manure was supplied by M/s. Hee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vember 16, 1987, upheld the plea of the assessees and held that the assessees were only second dealers in the State and so the assessees are not liable to be taxed on the second sale of goods in the State. Aggrieved by the aforesaid decision of the Appellate Tribunal, the Revenue has come up in revisions. 2.. We heard counsel for the Revenue, Mr. N.N. Divakaran Pillai. It was argued that in thi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....les Tax Rules, 1963. There is no plea or material to hold that M/s. A.V. Yohannan and Sons was an agent or intermediary of Rajasthan dealer, M/s. Heera Crushing Company (P.) Ltd. The terms of the contract of supply are not in writing. It is also to be noted that M/s. A.V. Yohannan and Sons have agreed to be assessed as the first sellers of this item in the State. M/s. A.V. Yohannan and Sons are in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the goods from Rajasthan to this State was as a result of any contract between M/s. A.V. Yohannan and Sons and the assessees or that it* was in the course of inter-State trade. On the facts found by the Tribunal, the conclusion that there is no sale of manure by the Rajasthan dealer to the assessees, that M/s. A.V. Yohannan and Sons have never acted as an agent or intermediary so as to make the a....