TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (7) TMI 914
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... inter-State sales at Rs. nil but was assessed at Rs. 2,85,443.39 by the assessing officer by the order dated March 31, 1990 which was confirmed by the first appellate authority in Appeal No. 796 of 1990 on May 9, 1991. But the Tribunal by the order under revision has allowed the second appeal filed by the dealer-opposite party and held that the transaction in question does not amount to interState sale. The facts of the case in brief are as follows: The contention of the dealer-opposite party before the authorities below was that it sold the goods to the local party at Gorakhpur and the delivery of the goods was also effected. However, on the instructions of such purchasers it sent the goods outside the State of U. P. through ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ated finding has drawn an inference that the sale in question is not inter-State sales but intraState sale. In the memo of revision the State has raised the following question of law: "Whether the Trade Tax Tribunal was legally justified to hold that the impugned transactions are not inter-State sales despite the fact that the honourable High Court had held otherwise in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. v. Mewalal Kewal Kishore [1976] 38 STC 551; [1976] UPTC 571?" The only point thus mooted in the present revision is whether the transactions in question are inter-State sales or intra-State sales. Chapter II of the Central Sales Tax Act provides for sales or purchase of goods which are known as inter-State sales or purc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3(b). Applying the said ratio, on the facts of the present case, it is admitted at least by the dealer-opposite party that it got the railway receipts in its name and transferred the same by making endorsement after movement of goods from the State of U.P. to outside of the State. On the relevant facts one and the only one conclusion is possible that the transaction in question is nothing but an inter-State transaction and is covered by clause (b) of section 3 of the Central Sales Tax Act. A Division Bench of this court has dealt with exactly the same controversy in Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. v. Mewalal Kewal Kishore [1976] 38 STC 551 (All); [1976] UPTC 571. The facts of the case are noted in paragraph 3 of the judgment which are re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... A close scrutiny of the facts and the controversy involved in the cases would show that they were decided on different factual matrix and are distinguishable on facts. In the case of Maheshwari Devi Jute Mills Ltd. [1971] 27 STC 61 (All) under the terms of the contact it was provided that the goods sold shall be deemed to have been sold ex-mill delivery. In this case the assessee sold the goods to a Kanpur party within the State and the Kanpur party entered into transaction with a party outside the State but ultimately the delivery was effected by the assessee. It was held that there were two transactions. One by the mill to the Kanpur party who received the delivery or deemed to have received the delivery and the second being a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ale. In the case on hand, the dealer got the railway receipts in his name and endorsed in the name of Gorakhpur party after receiving the consideration and thus the sale has been effected by transfer of document of title to the goods during their movement from one State to another. It is covered by clause (b) of section 3 of the Act. The above case has, therefore, no application to the facts of the present case and is distinguishable as rightly pointed out by the learned standing counsel. Similarly, on the facts of the case of Bhoorey Khan Glass Bangle Factory [1974] 34 STC 332 (All) is distinguishable and has hardly any application to the facts of the present case. This was also a case relating to clause (a) of section 3 of the Central ....