TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (10) TMI 784
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t upon the premises of the revisionist which describes itself as a "courier service provider". From the facts, which stand recorded and disclosed from the material placed before this Court, it appears that the revisionist had entered into an agreement styled as a 'Logistics Agreement' ("the Agreement") with an online web portal "Naaptol Online Shopping Private Limited" (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as the "web portal"). In terms of this Agreement, the revisionist was liable to collect consignments from the consignor's address furnished by the web portal. The web portal itself is, in the submission of the learned counsel for the revisionist, an e-commerce site which enables individuals situate throughout the l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... "business" within the State of U.P so as to be covered within the ambit of the 2008 Act. As is evident from the order of the Tribunal, the various contentions, which the revisionist advanced and which are reiterated before this Court, have been answered against it. The Tribunal, while exercising powers under Section 48 of the Act, has proceeded to return and record the following findings:- A. The revisionist is liable to be treated as a "dealer" under the provisions of the 2008 Act. B. The transaction as effected on the e-commerce web portal and in respect of which moneys are received within the State are not liable to be treated as inter-State sales. C. The revisionist in the course of carrying on its operation within the State doe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....isionist. Shri Agrawal then refers to the definitions of 'business' and 'dealer' as enumerated in clauses (e) and (h) of Section 2 of 2008 Act to submit that the services rendered by a courier company like the revisionist clearly cannot be envisaged to be a business engaged in the sale or purchase of goods. He stresses upon the fact that clause (e) of Section 2 clearly exorcises from its ambit such entities which are engaged in activities in the nature of providing a mere service. Sri Agrawal further submits that in terms of clause (h) of Section 2, it could not be said that the revisionist was an agent appointed for collection or payment of sale price as envisaged in sub clause (v) thereof. He places reliance upon the prov....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itted no illegality in proceeding to hold that the sale was completed upon the receipt of price from the consumer within the State of U.P. He submits that the revisionist does not dispute the fact that the consignees have and retain the right to refuse the consignment. He therefore submits that such reservation of rights would clearly rob the transaction of the character of an inter-State sale. It is these rival submissions which fall for consideration. It is not disputed that the power exercised by the authorities concerned are referable to Section 48 of the Act. Section 48, it becomes relevant to note, envisages an authorized officer to seize goods where he has reason to believe that the same have not been accounted for by the dealer in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Court finds that no such finding in respect of the seized goods has come to be recorded. The Tribunal has while considering the issue of seizure of the goods chosen to tread a path and embark upon a course of enquiry which was perhaps not warranted at all. Since the scope of the enquiry itself was expanded by the Tribunal, it appears that the pointed issues which actually fell for or should have fallen for determination and were germane to the exercise of powers under Section 48 of the Act have been lost sight of. More fundamentally the objection which stands raised and which becomes evident from the record is that the Tribunal has completely failed to record any finding with respect to the seized goods having not been duly accounted for in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that the payment for the goods was made within the State. What the Tribunal clearly lost sight of and unjustifiably chose to ignore was its own record wherein it was admitted that the goods in question had come from outside the State of U.P. The Tribunal in its entire order nowhere places reliance or refers to any material which may have cast a shadow of doubt on the said recital which stood recorded in the course of the initial seizure proceedings. Further, the view taken by the Tribunal to the effect that the sale would stand completed only upon the payment for the goods and that the payment of price would be determinative of the issue would also, in the opinion of this Court, appear to be an issue which may not be free from debate. This....