JUDGMENT Rajes Kumar, J.
1. These two revisions under Section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") are directed against the orders of the Tribunal dated 19th, July, 1996 and 31st, May, 1997 relating to assessment years 1984-85 and 1985-86 under the Central Sales Tax Act respectively.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the present dealer/opp. party entered into a contract with S/S Indian Fragrances and Chemicals Works, Kannauj and S/S Ram Narain Raj Narain, Kannauj vide agreement dated 01.12.1984 to act as an Agent and to make purchases of Sandal Woods on their behalf in an auction held at Tamil Nadu. Copy of the agreement has been filed by the learned Standing Counsel alongwith the Supplementary affidavit. In pursuance of the agreement, dealer purchased Sandal Woods in an auction held at Tamil Nadu. Admittedly, it was purchased in its own name. Thereafter, the Sandal Woods were dispatched to Kannauj and builties were prepared in the name of self which were subsequently endorsed in favour of S/S Ram Narain Raj Narain, Kannauj and S/S Indian Fragrances and Chemicals Works, Kannauj. The Assessing Authority had held that since the purchases were made by the dealer in its own name and builties were prepared in the name of self which were subsequently endorsed in favour of two parties. They were inter-State sales by the dealer in favour of S/S Ram Narain Raj Narain, Kannauj and S/S Indian Fragrances and Chemicals Works, Kannauj and in the absence of Forms-C, levied tax @ 12% on the estimated turnover. Dealer filed appeals before the Commissioner of Trade Tax. Both the appeals have been allowed in part. It appears that before the Appellate Authority, dealer filed Forms-C obtained from the aforesaid two parties to get the benefit of concessional rate of tax. Forms-C were accepted and the tax were reduced from 12% to 4%. Being aggrieved by the order of the First Appellate Authority, dealer as well as the Commissioner of Trade Tax filed appeals before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by the impugned order, rejected the appeals of Commissioner of Trade Tax and allowed the appeals of the dealer. The Tribunal held that the dealer acted as a Purchasing Commission Agent and made purchases on behalf of two parties namely S/S Ram Narain Raj Narain, Kannauj and S/S Indian Fragrances and Chemicals Works. Kannauj. The Tribunal held that the purchases were made in pursuance of agreement of the agency and after making the purchases, necessaries entries in the books of account were made in the account of the aforesaid two parties. All the expenses relating to the purchases have also been debited in their account and only commission had been charged. It has also been observed that the freight have also been paid by the aforesaid two parties at the time of taking the delivery of the good.
3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
4. Learned Standing Counsel submitted that, admittedly the goods were purchased by the dealer in its own name and thereafter, they were dispatched in its own name and subsequently, builties were endorsed in favour of the aforesaid two parties of Kannauj and thus, such dispatches were the inter-State sales under Section 3(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act.
5. I do not find any substance in the argument of learned Standing Counsel. The genuineness of the agreement dated 01.12.1094 has not been disputed. When the purchases were made by the dealer at Tamil Nadu in an auction, the said agreement was in existence. Thus, there is no reason to disbelieve that the purchases were not made in an auction at Tamil Nadu as a Purchasing Commission Agent, in pursuance of the agreement dated 01.12.1984 for S/S Ram Narain Raj Narain, Kannauj and S/S Indian Fragrances and Chemicals Works, Kannauj. The books of account were accepted. The Tribunal held that after making the purchases, necessary entries were made in the books of account in the account of the aforesaid two parties and the dealer had only received the commission. This finding of the Tribunal is also undisputed. Thus, there appears to be no reason to disbelieve that the purchases were made on behalf of the aforesaid two parties of Kannauj. Merely because, the purchases were made in the name of dealer, is not sufficient to dispute the claim of purchases, as a Commission Agent on behalf of aforesaid two parties. In the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Bakhtawar Lal Kailash Chandra reported in 1992 UPTC page 971, the Apex Court held that the purchases of goods made by the Purchasing Commission Agent on behalf of Ex- U.P. Principal and their dispatch outside the State of U. P. at the destination of the Ex- U.P. Principal were in the course of inter-State purchases. In this case also, the purchases were made by the Purchasing Commission Agent in its name. On the facts of the case, it cannot be said that there was any privity of contract between the dealer and S/S Ram Narain Raj Narain, Kannauj and S/S Indian Fragrances and Chemicals Works, Kannauj. In this view of the matter, I do not find any error in the order of the Tribunal.
6. There is another aspect of the matter. Admittedly the movement of goods had commenced from the State of Tamil Nadu and admittedly, dealer had not obtained any Form from the authorities within the State of U. P. in respect of transactions in dispute under the Central Sales Tax Act. Under Section 9 of Central Sales Tax Act the State from where, the movement of goods commenced has a jurisdiction to levy and collect the tax. Since the movement of goods commenced from Tamil Nadu and not from State of U. P., the State of U. P. had no jurisdiction to levy central sales tax. The proviso to Section 9(1) of the Act is not applicable because dealer had not obtained any Form from the authority of State of U. P.
7. On the reasons stated above, both the revisions are devoid of any merit and are liable to be dismissed.
8. In the result, both the revisions fail and are, accordingly, dismissed.