2009 (3) TMI 944

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore in STA Nos. 1796 of 2004, 1116 of 2005, 1118 of 2005 and 1798 of 2004 respectively. Therefore all these petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. The facts leading to presentation of these petitions, in brief, are as under: The petitioner is a Government of India undertaking. Whenever the market price of any agricultural commodity falls below certain limits, the Government of India fixes a price called "minimum support price" for such agricultural commodity and procures such commodity from the farmers to protect their interest. Ministry of agriculture, Government of India, issues directions to various Government organisations to execute the scheme. As the m....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er would pay the rent payable to the respective warehousing corporation and the goods stored in such godowns are taken as running stock of the petitioner. The goods so stored are required to be insured by the procurement agency at the cost of the petitioner. The procurement agency was entitled to receive commission for the services rendered by it. As per the scheme the procurement agency purchased copra and supplied them to the petitioner. In turn, the petitioner sold the same to the consumers through different agencies. In the returns submitted to the sales tax authorities for the assessment years 2000-01 and 001-02, the petitioner disclosed total and taxable turnovers in respect of its business by claiming the amount of turnover in respec....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ority and dismissed the appeals. Against the orders of the appellate authority, the petitioner preferred appeals before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by its order dated September 18, 2007 dismissed the appeals and upheld the orders of the appellate as well as assessing authority. It is against the aforesaid orders the petitioner has presented these petitions. We have heard Sri C.G. Gopalaswamy, learned advocate for the petitioner and perused the orders under revision. The learned counsel contended that the assessing authority and the appellate authority have misled themselves in interpreting the relationship between the petitioner and the procurement agency as principal and agent. He contended that the authorities have committed error in ho....