1997 (2) TMI 510

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s to the assessment year 1976-77 and S.T.R. No. 372 of 1988 (under the U.P. Sales Tax Act) relates to the assessment year 1976-77. The only dispute relates to alleged purchases made by the dealers on behalf of ex-U.P. principal. S.T.R. No. 82 of 1988 relates to the judgment delivered in Appeal No. 132 of 1982 on September 17, 1987 while other two revisions relate to Appeal Nos. 214 of 1983 and 294 of 1983 (U.P. Sales Tax Act and Central Sales Tax Act, respectively) relates to the judgment delivered on September 9, 1987. In all the three appeals the Tribunal held that the disputed transactions are purchases in the course of inter-State trade and mere issue of certificate under section 3C(1) makes no difference. 2.. In reply learned Standi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the course of inter-State trade. It was argued that the transaction was covered under section 3 of the Central Sales Tax Act and the dealers are not claiming exemption under section 3-D of the Act. In support of this contention a reference was made to the decision of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P., Lucknow v. Radhey Shyam Kedar Nath, Hamirpur 1996 UPTC 1132 where this Court observed as follows: "............Such purchases on commission agency would be in the course of inter-State trade and commerce and, therefore, could not be taxed under section 3-D of the Act inasmuch as such transactions would be covered by section 3 of the Central Sales Tax Act." 4.. Learned counsel for the dealer also referred the case ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....her amount. Thus, if a sale is liable to be charged at a lower rate, the State cannot insist on realising a higher amount solely on the ground of a larger amount being charged. Relief can be given when an illegal impost not authorised by the law is made........." 7.. In view of the above case laws it is clear that the dealer has claimed that the transaction was covered under section 3 of the Central Sales Tax Act and was not claiming exemption under section 3-D of the Act. Since the claim of the dealer does not relate to section 3-D of the Act, the provisions of section 12-A cannot be applied and no presumption can be raised as provided therein. The arguments of the learned Standing Counsel, therefore, is not acceptable. It is concluded ....