ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA,J. - (1.) This appeal was admitted, and notices were issued to the assessee. Service of notice upon the assessee has already been held to be sufficient, vide order dated 20th March, 2017. None has appeared for the assessee. The matter, accordingly, is taken up for hearing in the absence of the assessee.
(2.) Present revision by the revenue challenges the orders passed by the first appellate authority as well as the Tribunal, deleting the amount of tax on the turnover of Rs.20,98,400/-, in the absence of Form-F. The first appellate authority as well as the Tribunal were of the opinion that mere absence of Form-F would not be conclusive, and since the return of goods is substantiated by the assessee with reference to other materials, as such, the liability to pay tax upon such transaction would not arise.
(3.) It transpires that the assessee is engaged in the business of purchase and sale of readymade garments. For the relevant year 2010-2011, proceedings for assessment under the Central Sales Tax Act were initiated. The dealer received goods valued at Rs.9,25,530/-. At the beginning of the assessment year, there was a stock of Rs.26,21,878/-. The dealer has disclosed that the stock of Rs.20,98,400/- has been returned to the principal situated outside the State of U.P. To substantiate such claim, the dealer has produced Form S.T.38 issued by Haryana Sales Tax Department, GRR of M/s. New Manohar Transport Company, and GRR of M/s. Tara Chand Pal Transport Service. It is, however, not in dispute that such transfer of stock was not backed by any Form-F. The assessing authority disallowed the claim of assessee by relying upon the provisions of Section 6A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, readwith notification dated 10th July, 2009. The assessing authority was of the opinion that there exists a statutory presumption of sale, unless such transfer beyond the State was backed by Form-F. The assessee being aggrieved preferred an appeal, which has been allowed. For doing so, the appellate authority has relied upon the decision in M/s. Ambica Steels Ltd. v. State of U.P. and others, reported in 2009 NTN (Vol. 39) 296. Further reliance is placed upon a judgment in Shree Hanuman Rice Mill v. State of Orissa, reported in 1988 (70) STC 316. A second appeal preferred by the revenue has also been rejected while concurring with the opinion expressed by the first appellate authority.;