YASHWANT VARMA,J. - (1.) Heard Sri Nikhil Agrawal, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri B.K. Pandey, who appeared for the State-respondent.
(2.) These three revisions of which the first two pertain to Assessment Years 200506 and 200607 and TTR No. 30 of 2011 emanate from proceedings which give rise to common questions of law and can be easily disposed of by means of the present judgment. They were with the consent of parties taken up for disposal together.
(3.) It is not disputed that the applicant is a proprietorship concern ["the concern"] which had its Head Office in the State Jammu and Kashmir and maintained a Branch Office at Moradabad. The Branch Office was engaged in the purchase of mentha oil from either registered dealers or directly from farmers situate within this State for and on behalf of the concern. For the relevant assessment years the Assessing Authority took the view that the purchases made by the Branch Office were concluded purchases effected within the State of U.P. and therefore exigible to tax under the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 19481. The Assessing Authority has also rested its decision on the application filed by the revisionist for the purposes of registration under the 1948 Act to hold that the Branch Office and the Head Office of the concern were liable to be 1 1948 Act viewed as separate entities especially since the revisionist had declared that he would not be effecting purchases for any ex U.P. principal. It has also taken the position that the recital contained in the application made by the revisionist for the purposes of registration that it would not undertake any business of purchase on behalf of ex U. P. principals to be determinative of the liability of the revisionist to tax under the Act.;