2006 (8) TMI 665

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... in the circumstances of the case, the Trade Tax Tribunal was legally justified to hold that the transaction of ₹ 1,26,38,020/- was consignment sale despite it is proved from the facts that the goods were moved from Aligarh to Delhi in pursuance to the prior purchase order and Form F was also not filed? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Trade Tax Tribunal was legally justified to hold that there was no evasion in central sale despite incriminating adverse material available on record indicate otherwise? 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Trade Tax Tribunal has properly utilized the adverse material available on record?" 3. Heard Sri B.K. Pandey, learned Standing Couns....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Aligarh and thus, it was a inter-State sales and not the stock transfer. Learned Counsel for the dealer/opposite party (hereinafter referred to as "Dealer") submitted that it is not in dispute that M/s Rakesh Kumar Deepak Kumar was the consignment agent of the dealer. He submitted that merely because the goods had been sold to the various parties on the same day on which it was received, it cannot be inferred that there was pre-existing contract with the buyers and in pursuance thereof there was a movement of goods. In support of his contention he relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Indian Wood Products Company Ltd., Bareilly vs. C.T.T., reported in 1999 NTN (Vol. 15) 660; 1999 UPTC, 845. He further submitted that even if....