RAJES KUMAR, J. - (1.) PRESENT revision under Section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is directed against the order of the Tribunal dated June 22, 2002 relating to the assessment year 1970 -71 under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Central Act').
(2.) THE applicant was engaged in the business of manufacture and sales of cotton yarn, etc., and claimed to have a depot at Delhi. It was claimed that during the year under consideration, yarn worth Rs. 1,65,04,387 had been transferred to Delhi depot by way of stock transfers. The assessing authority rejected the claim of stock transfers and treated the movement of goods to Delhi depot as inter -State sales. It appears that the matter went to the Tribunal. Similar dispute also arose in the assessment year 1969 -70. In the assessment year 1969 -70, the assessing authority rejected the claim of stock transfer, but the same was accepted by the first appellate authority and confirmed by the Tribunal. The Commissioner of Trade Tax filed revision before this court. This court vide order dated July 18, 1989 set aside the order of the Tribunal and remanded back the case to the Tribunal to decide the appeal afresh. Revision filed by the applicant before this court is Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Modi Spinning and Weaving Mills reported in [1989] UPTC 1214. The Tribunal, for the assessment year 1970 -71, has remanded back the matter to the assessing officer to examine the case of stock transfer in the light of the observations made by this court in the assessment year 1969 -70. In pursuance thereof, the assessing authority examined the claim of the applicant relating to stock transfers. Before the assessing authority, the applicant has not produced the entire stock transfer memos, builties and sale invoices raised from Delhi depot but some of the copies of the stock transfer memos and the sale invoices raised from Delhi depot were produced. Copies of the agreement in case of some of the purchasers also came to the notice of the assessing authority. It was found that some of the parties of Delhi had entered into an agreement with the applicant for the purchases of yarn. The assessing authority vide assessment order dated October 11,1993 rejected the claim of stock transfer. The assessing authority observed that in the copies of the stock transfer memos, same order numbers were mentioned which were mentioned in the sale invoices raised by the Delhi depot. On these facts, it has been held that the movements of goods from Modinagar to Delhi were in pursuance of prior contract of sale and it was known as to whom the goods were to be delivered. Upon this fact, claim of stock transfers to Delhi depot was rejected and the same have been treated as inter -State sales. Aggrieved by the order of the assessing authority, the applicant filed appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Trade Tax, Ghaziabad. The Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Trade Tax, Ghaziabad vide order dated March 8, 1995 dismissed the appeal. It appears that before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Trade Tax, Ghaziabad, the applicant placed some of the copies of the indent and submitted that in the stock transfer memos, in fact, indent number was mentioned. First appellate authority refused to rely upon such indent on the ground that they were subsequently prepared. Being aggrieved by the order of Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Trade Tax, Ghaziabad, the applicant filed second appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by the impugned order dismissed the appeal. The Tribunal held that the applicant had not produced any books of account relating to the stock transfers. Copies of all the agreements have also not been produced. The Tribunal has also referred that in the stock transfer memos some code name of the purchasers were also mentioned. The Tribunal has also refused to rely upon the copies of the indent produced before the first appellate authority. The Tribunal also held that the applicant is not able to prove that the movement of goods was to the Delhi depot and not in pursuance of prior contract of sale. Heard Sri Suyash Agrawal, learned Counsel for the applicant and Sri B.K. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel.
(3.) THE learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that Section 6A of the Central Act has been introduced with effect from April 1, 1972 and, therefore, it was not applicable in the assessment year 1970 -71. He submitted that since Section 6A of the Central Act was not in the Act which has placed burden on the assessee to prove that the movement of goods was otherwise than in the course of inter -State sales, the burden lies upon the Revenue to prove that the movement of goods were in pursuance of prior contract of sale, which the Revenue failed to prove. He further submitted that the alleged discrepancies were found in respect of some of the transactions only and on the basis of such discrepancies all the stock transfers could not be rejected. The learned Standing Counsel relied upon the order of the Tribunal.;