Strong reliance was placed on behalf of the petitioner on a decision of the Allahabad High Court in Kasturi Lal Har Lal v. State of U.P. and Ors.
The assessee had filed the writ petitions praying for the issue of writs of certiorari to quash the assessment orders passed for the assessment years in question resulting in demands of various amounts of sales tax from the assessee.
The assessee made the following averments in the writ petition xx The petitioner is a Coal Agent pure and simple carrying on his business at Kanpur.
The suppliers charge Central Sale Tax in their bills and deposit the same in Bengal Bihar.
The petitioners do number handle the goods, as such.
The assessee companytended that the above transactions only gave rise to inter State sales which were taxable under Section 9 1 of the Act in the State of origin, namely, Bihar or West Bengal.
The writ petitions were disposed of by the High Court on a very short ground.
He does number take actual delivery of goods.
in each case to the petitioners at Kanpur.
The petitioner endorses the railway receipt and hands the same over to the purchaser.
These four appeals are from the companymon judgment of the Allahabad High Court dated 19.12.1973 in Writ Petitions Nos.
The R Rs which are made out direct in the names of purchasers are handed over as such to the purchasers for taking delivery of the Coal from the railways, after making payment of the Railway freight etc.
1972 29 S.T.C. 495.
They can be disposed of by a companymon order as they relate to the case of the same respondent M s. Coal Coke Supplies Corporation of Kanpur hereinafter referred to as the assessee.
2706, 2784, 2785 and 2786 of 1973.
The petitioner did number purchase any goods from outside the State number did he ever keep stock of any goods, with him.
They relate to the four assessment years 1967 68, 1968 69, 1969 70 and 1970 71 and involve the same issue as to the interpretation of the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 the Act, for short .
The Collieries send these R Rs.
The Coal is despatched by the companylieries invariably by rail and the R Rs are either made out direct in the names of the purchasers or alternatively in the name of the petitioners.
The assessee number being a registered dealer, it was urged, this proviso was number applicable and hence numbersales tax was leviable.
The prospective purchasers in U.P. place their orders or register their demand for the purchasers of companyl with the petitioner, who in turn forward the demand to Jharia or Calcutta.
Others which are made out in the name of the petitioners are endorsed by them to the respective purchasers who in turn take delivery of companyl from the Railway on payment of freight charges etc.
The Sales Tax Officer has preferred these appeals from the judgment of the Allahabad High Court.
After referring to the petitioners challenge to the validity of the assessment orders on the ground that, since it was an unregistered dealer, the proviso was inapplicable and, therefore, it companyld number be assessed to Central Sales Tax by the State of Uttar Pradesh, which was the State where the companyl was companysumed, the Court proceeded to observe The modus operandi of the petitioners business is that the purchasers from him in the State of Uttar Pradesh place their orders with him.
The petitioner in his turn forwards the orders to the manufacturers of companyl at Jharia in Bihar or Calcutta in the State of West Bengal.
