TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (3) TMI 735
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....laimed to have made sales through its Commission Agent M/s. Geetanjali Sales Corporation, Delhi for ₹ 18,63,396.87. During the course of assessment proceedings, in support of its claim that the dispatch of the goods to its Commission Agent for sale at Delhi were not in pursuance of any prior contract of sale, 4 Forms-F and Sale Patti were filed. The Assessing Authority accepted the claim and allowed the exemption on the said turnover on the ground that on enquiry, Forms were found correct. Subsequently, the Assessing Authority initiated a proceedings under Section 21 of the Act on the basis of information received that the alleged four Forms-F were not issued to M/s. Geetanjali Sales Corporation, Delhi and such Firm was not registered....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r such Forms were issued prior to 1992. No enquiry have been made in this regard. It had also been observed that in the report, Assessing Authority stated that the goods were moved in pursuance of prior contract of sale to M/s. Geetanjali Sales Corporation, Delhi, but no such inference was drawn by the Assessing Authority in the assessment order or any reference of such order have been made. The Appellate Authority observed that the Assessing Authority had not made proper enquiry with regard to the Forms-F, movement of goods, sources of payment and the alleged contract. The Appellate Authority also observed that it had not been enquired that when M/s. Geetanjali Sales Corporation, Delhi was closed then how the transactions were made in 1994....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tted that on the pleading of the applicant before the First Appellate Authority that proper enquiry have not been made in the matter, the case has been remanded back by the First Appellate Authority to the Assessing Authority. He submitted that in the present case claim of the Applicant, that the movement of goods to the Consignment Agent for sale on consignment basis was accepted in the original assessment order, merely on the basis of Forms-F, which were subsequently found to have not been issued to M/s. Geetanjali Sales Corporation, Delhi and it was further found that M/s. Geetanjali Sales Corporation, Delhi was not in existence after 1994 and no Forms-F were issued after 1992. He submitted that once it is found that the Forms-F on the b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....entral Sales Tax Act, burden lies upon the dealer to prove that the movement of goods was not in pursuance of any prior contract of sale. If the dealer fails to discharge its burden as required under Section 6-A of the Central Sales Tax Act, the movement of goods is deemed to be inter-States sales. In the present case, to prove its claim that the movements of goods to Delhi were to its Commission Agent M/s. Geetanjali Sales Corporation, Delhi for sale at Delhi and not in pursuance of any prior contract of sale, dealer furnished Forms-F obtained from M/s. Geetanjali Sales Corporation, Delhi and also sale Patti Perusal of original assessment order shows that no enquiry was made with regard to Sale Patti. but merely 4 Forms-F were being found ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y. Needles to say that under Section 9 of U.P. Trade Tax Act, Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) has a power to remand back the case to the Assessing Officer with direction. Thus, remand of case in exercise of such power cannot be said to be unjustified. 8. In the case of Gramin Bhatta Udyog Sangh v. Commissioner, Sales Tax (supra), dealer challenged the initiations of proceedings under Section 21 on the ground that there was no material to justify the issuance of notice under Section 21 of the Act, the matter was remanded back by the Tribunal to the First Appellate Authority. Order of the Tribunal was challenged by the dealer in this Court on the ground that the remand of the case by the Tribunal to the First Appellate Authority was unjustifie....