TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (11) TMI 549
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....w Delhi. During the assessment year 1986-87, it is alleged that M/s. Coolade-Beverages (a unit of M/s. Sikand Polypack Pvt. Ltd., 7, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi), hereinafter called as lessee company, approached the applicant-company for financing the plant and machinery on lease basis for the purpose of installation of the same in their plant situated in the State of U.P. for which a proposal was signed on March 5, 1987 and the lease agreement dated March 20, 1987 copy of which is annexure 3 to the revision was finally executed at New Delhi. For the execution of the agreement, orders were placed to M/s. Express Bottlers Services Pvt. Ltd., Bombay and M/s. Setwell Conveyors, Bombay, who have despatched the machinery directly to the factory o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cant had raised following issues: (1) An agreement dated March 20, 1987 and November 6, 1990 was executed at Delhi and, therefore, the transfer of right to use the goods took place at Delhi and not in the State of U.P. and, therefore, no tax can be levied under section 3F of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948. In support of the submission, reliance was placed on the decision of the apex court in the case of 20th Century Finance Corpn. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra [2000] 119 STC 182; [2000] 16 NTN 425. (2) Commissioner of Trade Tax, vide, order dated February 14, 2000 appointed Assistant Commissioner, Trade Tax, Sector 3, Moradabad, as the assessing authority who has passed order for the assessment years 1991-92 and 1993-94, therefore, the T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that the Tribunal has erred in holding that the alleged two agreements dated March 20, 1987 and November 6, 1990 executed at Delhi were not relating to the machineries leased out within the State of U.P. He further submitted that before the Tribunal, it was also argued that the machinery which were given on lease were purchased from outside the State of U.P. and were directly supplied by the ex-U.P. vendors at the site of the lessee in the State of U.P. and, therefore, the transaction was covered by section 3 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and hence, the State of U.P. has no jurisdiction to levy the tax. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that this argument was raised before the Tribunal, but the Tribunal has not considered the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... perused the order of the Tribunal and the authorities below and considered the submissions of both the parties. In my view, there is no force in the argument of the learned counsel for the applicant. The agreement dated March 20, 1987 which is alleged to be relating to the leased machines shows that in paragraph 5, it is specifically mentioned that the machinery shall be installed at Delhi and shall not be removed. In the agreement dated November 6, 1990 in column No. 5 no place for the use of the machines is mentioned. Therefore, it is very doubtful to say that the alleged two agreements relate to the leased machines. Finding of the Tribunal that the alleged two agreements are not relating to the leased machines is finding of fact a....