TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (8) TMI 560
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s "the Act") are directed against the order of the Tribunal dated April 7, 1998 relating to the assessment years 1987-88 and 1988-89. The dealer/opposite party (hereinafter referred to as "the dealer") claimed to be an association of the brick kiln owners and was engaged in the business of buying and selling of coal. It was registered under the U.P. Trade Tax and Central Sales....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....owed and the tax levied on the freight was deleted. Commissioner of Trade Tax filed appeals before the Tribunal, which have been rejected by the impugned order. Heard Sri B.K. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel and Sri R.R. Agrawal, learned counsel for the dealer. The learned Standing Counsel submitted that the dealer was not able to substantiate that the freight was paid by the brick kiln owners ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... directly to the railway, therefore, the freight could not be part of the turnover. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the order of the Tribunal and the authorities below. In the present case, dealer was registered under the U.P. Trade Tax Act and Central Sales Tax Act. Coal was imported against form XXXI from outside the State of U. P. and forms C were also issued ....