TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (4) TMI 192
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d by the revisionist has been rejected and the first appellate order dated 5.8.2011 has been upheld. 3. It has been submitted by counsel for the revisionist that the revisionist is a public limited company which has its duly registered office at Resham Bhawan, Mumbai but its principal place of business in the State of U.P. is at Lucknow. He has further submitted that the revisionist-company is registered under U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 as well as Central Sales Act, 1956 w.e.f. 13.2.1987 and 12.3.1987 respectively. The company has a seed processing plant at Kota, Rajasthan. The plant engineers select place, soil etc. for the growing of particular seeds all over India and the company enters into agreements with contractors for procurement o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s the arguments raised by the petitioner has rejected the second appeal which has been impugned by the revisionist in the present revision. 7. The following questions of law arise for determination:- "(2) Whether the applicant having appointed various persons as its agent/contractor to provide foundation seeds to the farmers, supervision of its growing and dispatch from U.P. to Kota in the State of Rajasthan, the transaction cannot be treated as purchase within the State of U.P., since the process of purchase was completed in Kota in the State of Rajasthan when the processing and testing of the seeds was complete in Kota and thereafter it was accepted by the applicant company." 8. The impugned order has been assailed primaril....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... assessing authority is just, reasonable and within the parameter of U.P. Trade Tax Act. 10. It was further held that second transaction relates to sending of the goods from State of U.P. to Kota which amounts to inter State transfer which is beyond the realm of taxation under U.P. Trade Tax on which no tax has been levied. 11. Sri Rohit Nandan Shukla, learned counsel for the Revenue has supported the orders passed by the authorities below and submits that there is no infirmity with the same and all the grounds raised by the revisionists have been duly considered and entire conspectus of facts has been fairly dealt with. 12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 13. The assesee is involved in the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....farmers by the assessee. Undoubtedly, from a perusal of the record as well as various documents annexed by the revisionist it is clear that procurement of such seeds is taxable within the State of U.P. It has been admitted that the farmers are paid 90 percent of the price at the stage when the said transaction takes place and the remaining amount is paid depending upon the quality of certificate issued by the unit at Kota. The Tribunal has rightly held that this aspect of the transaction culminated in the State of U.P. wherein the procurement of the said seeds takes place from the farmers by the assessee/through their contractor is an intra-State sale which is totally covered by the provisions of Trade Tax Act. 16. I am of the cons....