TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (8) TMI 1097
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ejected the appeal filed by the assessee for the A.Y. 1997-98 as also for the A.Y.s. 1996- 97, 1998-99 and 1999-00. During A.Y. 1997-98, the assessee disclosed nil taxable turnover. However, it was assessed to tax Rs. 41,00,000/- with respect to supplies of equipments made to M/s Escotel Mobile Communications Limited used in mobile communication from its factories at Delhi and Karnataka. 2. Heard Sri Shashi Mathews, alongwith Sri Tanmay Sadh, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Nishant Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri B.K. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the revenue. 3. The present revisions have been pressed by the applicant on the following questions of law:- "(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on its own account) and another/second of intra-state sale by such seller, thereafter. 6. In that regard, it has been stated that the entire supply of goods had been made by the assessee to M/s Escotel Mobile Communications Limited under the contract dated 18.05.1996. No other contract had been awarded to the assessee during that year and it had not sold goods to any other person or any other contract inside the State of U.P. Therefore, it was clearly established that the entire quantity of goods sold inside the state of U.P. had been sold by the assessee in the course of inter-state sales from Kerala, Delhi and Karnataka to M/s Escotel Mobile Communications Limited, inside the State of U.P. 7. Alternatively, it has been submitted the ass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....te of U.P. and since the assessee's name was mentioned as the consigner in the excise documents. Clearly, existence of the godown inside the State of U.P. was not decisive to determine whether the movement of the goods had been occasioned by a preexisting contract for sale of goods. Similarly, mere mention of the assessee's name as the consignor of the goods was largely irrelevant. 10. Even if that reasoning is ignored, it appears that the Tribunal further found that there was more than one contract in existence. While no dispute existed with respect to goods supplied against Form XXXI of M/s Escotel under the contract for supply of goods inside the state of U.P. from Delhi and Bangalore, in addition the assessee imported the goods....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng produced and further in absence of it being established before the authorities that the entire quantities of goods had been imported pursuant to pre-existing contract for sale of those goods, inside the State of U.P., merely because the assessee had executed a single contract inside the State, could not lead to the conclusion that all goods had been imported pursuant to that pre-existing contract for sale especially when undisputedly the assessee had sold/transferred some of those imported goods to outside the State of U.P. at Kerala and Haryana. 12. In cases such as this, the burden to establish that the particular/identified goods had been imported inside the State pursuant to a pre-existing contract rested on the assessee. The facts ....