RAJES KUMAR,J. - (1.) HEARD Sri B.K. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel and Sri Alok Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party.
(2.) THE present revision under Section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as "Act") is directed against the order of the Tribunal dated 10.10.2001 for the assessment year 1996-97. The dispute relates to the transaction of Rs. 4,11,550/- under the Central Sales Tax Act. The dealer/opposite party (hereinafter referred to as the "Dealer") was carrying on the business of food grains, oil seed, pulses etc. Admittedly, the goods for Rs. 4.550/- was despatched outside the State of U. R The dealer claimed that the goods, which have been despatched outside the State of U.P. related to the purchases made on behalf of Ex-U.P. Principal and after the purchases the goods were despatched. The assessing authority treated the despatches as inter-State sales and rejected the claim of the dealer that the purchases were made for and on behalf of Ex-U.P. Principal on the ground that the dealer was not able to produce any orders of the Ex-U.P. Principal to show that the goods were purchased in pursuance of the order and there was no co-relation between the purchases and despatches of the goods. The first appeal filed by the dealer was dismissed. The dealer filed second appeal before the Tribunal, which has been allowed by the impugned order. The Tribunal has accepted the plea of the dealer that the purchases were made for and on behalf of Ex-U.P. Principal on the ground that the orders were received on telephone and the name of the farmers, 6R, 9R, Mandi fees, palladari were mentioned. However, the Tribunal has accepted that the co-relation between the purchases and the despatches of the goods are not established but has observed that from this fact alone it cannot be inferred that the goods have been despatched outside the State of U. P. as a result of sale in pursuance of any order.
(3.) LEARNED Standing Counsel submitted that admittedly, the goods were despatched by the dealer outside the State of U.P. under Section 6-A of the Central Sales Tax Act, the burden lies upon the dealer to prove that the goods were not moved outside the State of U.P., in pursuance of any prior contract of sale. Neither any evidence nor any other documents have been adduced in this regard except the claim that the purchases were made for and on behalf of Ex-U.P. Principal. He submitted that under the U.P. assessment, the dealer himself had admitted the purchases relating to the despatch of the goods on own account and admitted the liability of tax. Further the dealer was not able to establish that the purchases were made in pursuance of any order. The copy of the order of the Ex-U.P. Principal has not been adduced. The dealer was also not able to establish co-relation between the purchases and the despatches of the goods. Therefore, the dealer had failed to prove that the goods were purchased for and on behalf of Ex-U.P. Principal. In support of the contention he relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of C.S.T. v. M/s. Bakhtawar Lal Kailash Chand Arhti, 1992 UPTC 971.;