- (1.)THIS is M/s Jankidas Rampratap's revision petition against the order of the Dy. Commissioner Sales Tax (Appeals) Jodhpur dated 1-5-64 rejecting the petitioner's appeal against the order passed by the Sales Tax Officer, Bikaner dated 9-11-62 assessing the appellant on the turnover of 'banaspati' supplied by M/s Hindusthan Lever Ltd. Delhi. The facts are that the petitioner's firm is a registered dealer under the name and style of M/s Jankidas Rampratap, Sadar Bazar, Bikaner carrying on business in Vegetable Dalda, Kirana etc. They were assessed for the year 1957-58 by the Sales Tax Officer, Bikaner City. Therein they claimed the entire turn over as tax paid goods in respect of the 'dalda' supplied, of which the petitioner claimed to be a clearing and forwarding agent. Both the subordinate courts did not accept the plea of the petitioner on the ground that they were obtaining goods from M/s Hindustan Levers Ltd. Bombay and Delhi directly who was a non-resident dealer and the goods were taxable at the first point when they sold them to other persons in their capacity as depot holder. The counsel for the petitioners contended that the firm M/s Hindustan Levers Ltd. is not a non-resident firm in the Rajasthan State. It is registered under a certificate No. 448*0 and have got five depots in Rajasthan. Its total turn over in the year 1957-58 of the turn of nearly 76 Lakhs and 134 Lakhs in the year 58-59 were assessed by the Sales Tax Officer, Jaipur & Ajmer City and no tax demand was created against them as the tax was already paid. In support he cited true copies of the two orders for those years. These orders have been placed on the file. The counsel for the petitioner, therefore, urged that there was no scope for the petitioner being held liable to pay tax on the ground that they purchased the goods from a non-resident firm of M/s Hindusthan Lever Ltd. The counsel for the non applicant on behalf of the assessing authority was unable to give any satisfactory explanation as to how the firm M/s Hindusthan Lever Ltd. was treated as a non-resident firm in Rajasthan when it clearly bears a registration certificate as evidence of true copies of the orders of S. T. O. , Jaipur & Ajmer. These firms have been assessed for the turn over of all other five depots for the two years 57-58 and 58-59 and for the two years they have deposited a tax of Rs. 4,74,000/- in the first case and 9,39. 837. 77 in the second case. Thus both the authorities ran into a grievous error of fact and law in the face of strong documentary proof in taxing the petitioner's firm for the second time. The petitioner had tried to convince both the authorities by presenting them the invoices of the goods supplied as tax free and yet both the authorities refused to believe these invoices of a reputed firm on certain wrong assumptions taken by them in their impugned orders. The fact clearly stands proved that the firm M/s Hindusthan Levers Ltd. are the resident dealers' in Rajasthan and they have their depots in the State. They supply goods though directly from their factory to the various parties by rail or road yet the sale takes place through the firm of M/s Hindusthan Levers Ltd as registered dealer in the State at their various depots covered by the region. In the circumstances the petitioner's firm has been wrongly assessed for the tax paid vegetable goods from M/s Hindusthan Levers Ltd. The revision petition is, therefore, accepted and the orders of the subordinate authorities taxing the petitioner's firm for Vegetable products supplied by M/s Hindusthan Levers Ltd. is set aside. .