R.M.Sahai, J. - (1.) On the undisputed facts that certain purchases were made by the assessee as commission agent of ex-U.P. principals the question is whether the assessee was entitled to exemption as these purchases were in the course of inter-State trade and commerce. The claim of the assessee was repelled by the Tribunal and the decision given in Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Hanuman Trading Company 1979 UPTC 809 was distinguished because there was no agreement of purchase and sale between the assessee and its ex-U. P. principals. It was further held that an agent cannot make any sale or purchase to his principal. Therefore, when purchases were made by the assessee on behalf of its ex-U.P. principals it was purchased or sold in its own capacity. Reliance was placed on Panna Lal Babu Lal [1956] 7 STC 722. It was also held that once a registered dealer undertakes to carry out his obligation to constituents outside the State such purchases made by such dealer are in the course of inter-State trade or commerce. Reliance for this was placed on Himatsingka Timber Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa [1966] 18 STC 236 (SC). The Tribunal found that as the assessee had purchased oil-seed and foodgrain from registered dealers without disclosing to them the name of its ex-U.P. principal, it shall be deemed that the purchases made by the assessee were to discharge obligations entered between the assessee and its constituents outside the State and the case was covered by the above noted decision. It further found that as the assessee had furnished declaration in form III-C(1) it was clearly liable to pay purchase tax under Section 3-D(2) on oil-seed and food-grains and under Section 3-AAAA for purchases made of mahua flower.
(2.) The Tribunal appears to have completely misunderstood the decision given by this Court in Hanuman Trading Company's case 1979 UPTC 809. In that decision, even in absence of purchase orders on inference of agreement between principal and agent for purchasing on its behalf giving rise to inter-State sale was held from the supply of the goods on commission.
(3.) In effect where it is established that certain goods had moved out of State in pursuance of an order placed by ex-U. P. principals through the commission agency then the commission agent is not liable to pay any tax under Section 3-D, as such purchases shall be deemed to be purchases in the course of inter-State trade by ex-U. P. principals. In the case of the assessee also it was not disputed by any of the authorities that purchases were made by ex-U. P. principal although in the local market it was the assessee who acting as an agent of ex-U. P. principals made purchases on their behalf. In such circumstances the principle laid down in Hanuman Trading Company's case 1979 UPTC 809 was squarely applicable.;