VIKRAM NATH, J. - (1.) THIS trade tax revision has been filed by Satish Chand Pawan Kumar, Dhanipur Mandi, Aligarh (hereinafter referred to as, 'the dealer') under Section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Act'), against the judgment and order of the Trade Tax Tribunal, Ghaziabad, dated January 29, 1999. Initially there was difference of opinion between the two members of the Tribunal's Bench, whereupon it was referred to a third member, who decided in favour of the Department and accordingly the second appeal filed by the Commissioner of Trade Tax was allowed.
(2.) THE dealer is involved in the business of purchase and sale of foodgrains and oil -seeds. According to the dealer, it was making purchases for its account and also as commission agent for principals situate outside U.P. With regard to the assessment year 1988 -89, the dealer had shown purchases from local unregistered dealer of Rs. 6,07,927.15 to have been made for and on behalf of its ex -U.P. principals against the orders placed by them. The assessing authority, by order dated March 27, 1992, was not satisfied with the returns of the dealer with regard to the aforementioned transaction alleged to have been made for and on behalf of ex -U.P. principals and accordingly held the said transaction to be inter -State -sale. The assessing officer valued the inter -State sale at Rs. 7 lakhs and accordingly raised demand of tax of Rs. 56,000 at the rate of eight per cent. Aggrieved by the same the dealer, preferred an appeal. The Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) by judgment and order dated May 26, 1992 allowed the appeal of the dealer and held that these purchases were for and on behalf of ex -U.P. principals and accordingly set aside the demand. Against the same the Commissioner of Trade Tax filed appeal before the Tribunal. The two members of the Tribunal who heard the appeal disagreed. Sri Deu Dayal, Member of the Tribunal vide judgment and order dated October 7, 1997 concurred with the finding of the appellate authority and passed an order for dismissal of the appeal whereas Sri M. Athar the other member of the Bench disagreed with the findings of the appellate authority and affirmed that of the order of assessing officer and passed order dated October 15, 1997 for allowing the second appeal. The matter was referred to third member Sri Mahesh Chandra under Section 10(12)(a) of the Act, who held in favour of the Department vide his order dated April 24, 1998. In the view of the same an order was passed on January 29, 1999 by Sri V.M. Joshi, in -charge member of the Tribunal allowing the appeal of the Department and restoring the assessment order. It is against the said judgment that the present revision has been filed. The following questions of law have been raised in this revision: (i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is legally justified in holding that the purchases of Rs. 6,09,927.15 was made by the applicant on its own account and the movement of goods through outside the State of U.P. was in the course of inter -State sales? (ii) Whether the view of the Tribunals despatching the purchases of foodgrains for Rs. 6,09,927.15 on behalf of the ex -U.P. principals is based on relevant material and is legally justified ?
(3.) HEARD Sri Krishna Agarwal, learned Counsel for the dealer and Sri B. K. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the department and also perused the material on record.;