- (1.) CHALLENGING the legality and validity of the order dated 17th of Septem ber, 2000 passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal, Meerut in second appeal No.354 of 2000 rel evant to the assessment year 1996-1997 (Cen tral) whereby the tribunal has allowed the appeal of the dealer and has accepted the dealer's claim that the turnover of Gur amounting to Rs.11,66,250/- is not liable to be taxed as inter-State sale as the said goods were exported to Nepal dealers, the present revision has been filed. The only point mooted in the present revision is as to whether the dealer opposite party has been able to prove that the said transaction amounted to sale in the course of export or not.
(2.) THE dealer opposite party carries on the business of purchase and sale of Gur and Khandsari. It declared the total purchases at Rs.3,70,57,809.72 and taxable purchases at Rs.2,93,76,352.88. No inter- State sales were declared. However, the dealer declared the purchases of Rs. 11,83,744/- for the dealers of Nepal in commission agency. It was stated by him that the goods were sent to Nepal by 26 trucks. THE assessing authority rejected the claim of exemption on export sales by hold ing that the sale in question is liable to be taxed under section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act on a turnover of Rs.14 lakhs. THE said order was confirmed in appeal by the Deputy Commissioner, Trade Tax but has been set aside by the tribunal by the order under revision. In support of its case, the dealer filed certain documents to show that the goods were sent through transport companies namely M/s. S.P. Agrawal Transport Co., M/s. Agrawal Transport Co. and M/s. Shri Krishna Transport Company. These transport companies in their turn have certified that the goods were delivered at Nepal. The assess ing authority was of the view that in absence of any purchase order on behalf of the Nepali dealer and also in absence of any document either of India or Nepal Customs Department to show that the goods in question actually crossed the customs barrier, rejected the theory of purchases on behalf of Nepali deal ers in commission agency as was propounded and taxed the said turnover treating them as inter-State sale. It may be noted here that the case of the dealer was that all the goods were sent, to Veerganj, Nepal through the State of Bihar. The Assessing Authority by adding the commission (Dami), profit, transportation charges and other charges assessed the cen tral sales at Rs. 14 Lakhs in respect of the dis closed purchases of Rs.11,83,744-22. The tribunal was of the view that pro duction of customs certificate or of any document like this, is not the requirement of law. It proceeded to hold the said transaction as sales in the course of export on the ground that the photostat copies of 26 receipts of goods and the certificate furnished by the transport companies certifying that they trans ported the goods through their transport com panies and delivered the same at Veerganj, Nepal is sufficient to establish that the sales were made in the course of export sales.
(3.) IN the memo of revision the following question of law has been sought to be raised:-Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Trade Tax Tribunal is legally justified to set aside the central sales tax and to hold that the sale of 26 trucks of Gur is export sale to Nopal despite the dealer has failed to present any documentary evidence in support to claim of exemption? The contention of the learned standing counsel in support of the revision is that the said evidence in the form of certificate of transporters is not sufficient to hold that the sales were made in the course of export. In contra, Shri Piyush Agrawal the learned coun sel appearing for the dealer submits that pro duction of custom certificate is not at all required to prove a sale in the course of export.;