1996 (7) TMI 528

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the petitioner and the customers can be inferred? 2.. Was the Appellate Tribunal justified in holding that the dealership agreement is proved with the letter dated July 9, 1991? 3.. Was the Appellate Tribunal justified in holding that the petitioner is liable to pay sales tax on the turnover of Rs. 2,51,489.96 representing the value of 5 tempo vans by virtue of Explanation 5 to sub-section (xxi) of section 2 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963? Is not the aforesaid finding illegal and perverse? 4.. Was the Appellate Tribunal justified in applying the ratio of the decision in Alwaye Agencies case [1988] 70 STC 107 (SC) to the facts of the case and to hold that the petitioner liable in respect of the transactions? Is not the af....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... original order was revised by order dated December 31, 1985 showing this amount of Rs. 2,51,489.96 as additional turnover. This was the only question that was taken further up to the impugned order of the Tribunal as stated at the outset. 4.. The contention of the petitioner-assessee which is the same as was placed before the authorities below that the sale of five tempo vans of Messrs. Bajaj Tempo Limited, Poona, related to five individual customers in the State of Kerala. This was under direct delivery system and the assessee acted only as agent to canvass orders on behalf of Messrs. Bajaj Tempo Limited, Poona, and not in any other manner, and, therefore consequently not assessable under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. It was conten....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....after on the arrival of the vehicles within the State of Kerala between the petitioner-assessee, Messrs. Marikar and Company Limited and the individual customers which is evidenced from the very letter of appointment dated July 9, 1972 which is itself termed as agreement in the proceedings and letter dated January 6, 1976 of the petitioner-assessee Messrs. Marikar and Company Limited addressed to one of the customers together with the agreement dated January 15, 1977 between the petitioner-assessee-Messrs. Marikar and Company Limited and the individual purchasers. Learned counsel sought support through the decision of the Supreme Court in Alwaye Agencies v. Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax [1988] 70 STC 107 deali....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....978." 7.. Thereafter the Tribunal has also referred to the correspondence dated July 9, 1971 and has reproduced the following portion therefrom: "With reference to the discussions you had with us, we have pleasure in appointing you as our dealer for Hanseat 3 wheeler, Viking 4 wheeler (petrol driven), Matador 4 wheeler (diesel driven) vehicles and their spare parts for Trivandrum, Alleppey, Quilon, Kottayam and Kanyakumari districts on the following conditions: ........................ We would like you to deposit with us Rs. 7,000 out of which Rs. 2,000 will be spare parts deposit and Rs. 5,000 against infringement claims. Now let us have your initial firm order for the first three months and inform your tentative requirements ....