- (1.) THESE revisions which arise out of the common order dated 06.09.2013 involve common questions of law. The revisionist has come up before this Court challenging the order of the Commissioner Tax Tribunal dated 06.09.2013. The revisionist is a Company engaged in the BUSINESS of Leasing and Hire Purchase particularly leasing of the equipment, huge machinery, fleet of automobiles, office equipment. The revisionist is a financial lessor. 14 lease agreements were entered into by the revisionist company for the supply of equipment. Copy of the two agreements, one EXECUTED at Bombay dated 27.03.1995 between the revisionist -lessor and M/s. Rajiender Steels Ltd, and another agreement dated 18.09.1995 entered into between the revisionist -lessor and M/s. Sakura Seimitsu India Ltd. at Delhi, have been filed as Annexure -1 and Annexure -2 to the supplementary affidavit filed by the revisionist.
(2.) AN assessment was made by the Assessing Officer for the first time on 28.06.2000 against the petitioner. The matter was carried in appeal before the the appellate authority and finally to the Trade Tax Tribunal and the Tribunal taking into consideration the decision of the Supreme Court in (2000) 6 SCC 12, 20th Century Finance Corporation Ltd and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra remanded the matter back to the authority for fresh adjudication. On fresh assessment, the assessing authority by his order dated 26.04.2006 has rejected the claim of non -taxability of the revisionist holding that at the time when the contract was entered into by the revisionist, the goods were not in a possession of the lessor and therefore, the situs of sales would be the place where the goods were actually transferred to the customer i.e. within the State of U.P. Aggrieved, the revisionist preferred an appeal before the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) Trade Tax, Lucknow. The appellate authority has also rejected the appeal of the revisionist by order dated 21.12.2009 against which the revisionist preferred the second appeal before the Commercial Tax Tribunal. The Tribunal by the impugned order dated 06.09.2013 has partly allowed the appeal and remitted the matter to the Assessing Authority for determining the matter as regards whether the goods have been sent out of the State and whether the transaction would result in an inter -state sale and therefore, no sales tax could have been levied in the State of U.P.
(3.) I have heard Sri Bharat Ji Agarwal, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Mudit Agarwal, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Sanjeev Shankhdhar, learned counsel for the respondents. Sri Bharat Ji Agarwal has referred to the two lease agreements, one executed at Bombay and the other executed at Delhi in order to show that the agreements had been executed outside the state of U.P. He further submitted that an examination of the Schedule to the agreement executed between the revisionist and M/s. Sakura Seimitsu India Ltd. at Delhi, Annexure -1 to the supplementary affidavit would show that the location of the goods was shown as A -36 Sector VII and B -110, Sector V, NOIDA 201301 U.P. He has also referred to Clause 6.3 of the agreement to show that the lessee had inspected and selected the equipment and had signed the agreement relying on his own judgment.;