🖨️ Print / Download PDF

Gupta Grain Merchant Vs Commissioner of Trade Tax

Case No: Trade Tax Revision No. 218 of 1999

Date of Decision: April 30, 2002

Acts Referred: Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax Act, 1948 — Section 3D#Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax Rules, 1948 — Rule 12B

Citation: (2003) 131 STC 25

Hon'ble Judges: R.B. Misra, J

Bench: Single Bench

Advocate: Rajesh Agarwal, for the Appellant; S.D. Singh, for the Respondent

Final Decision: Allowed

Translate: English | हिन्दी | தமிழ் | తెలుగు | ಕನ್ನಡ | मराठी

Judgement

R.B. Misra, J.@mdashThe present trade tax revision has been preferred u/s 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act (called ""the Act"" in short) against the

order dated March 5, 1998 passed in Second Appeal No. 244 of 1993 (Year 1985-86).

1. Heard Sri Rajesh Agarwal, learned counsel for the applicant-revisionist and Sri S.D. Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent.

2. The brief facts necessary for adjudication of the case are that the applicant-revisionist deals, in foodgrain, oil seed, etc., which are declared

commodity u/s 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. In the relevant year applicant-revisionist purchased foodgrain from registered dealers and

obtained forms III-C(2) and III-C(5) from such dealers. The selling dealers have declared and admitted liability of tax. However, the said forms

III-C(2) and III-C(5) have been lost; the information above the same was given to the assessing officer on March 27, 1989. On the request of the

applicant-revisionist, the assessing authority made enquiries from the concerned assessing authorities of seller and received confirmatory letter that

the said forms in question have been issued to the applicant-revisionist. In the circumstances, the realisation of tax levied in the absence of forms

have been waived in view of circular dated January 15, 1988.

3. The circular dated January 15, 1988 is provided as below :

^^i= la- fof/k nks&29&I 1 I 84&85 ls 87&88&3217@ fc�h dj dk;kZy; vk;qDr fc�h dj] mRrj izns''k A

fof/k&vuqHkXk

fnukad 15 tuojh 1988

fo""k; % mRrj izns''k fc�h dj vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 3&gh ds varxZr NwV ls lacaf/kr fu/kkZfjr izi=ksa ds LFkku ij vU; izek.k&i= fn;s tkus ij

NwV dh vuweU;rk A

ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk loZJh xksfoUn jke rulq[k jk; ,.M dEiuh cuke vk;qDr fc�h dj] 1985 ;w ih Vh lh 1060 esa fn;s x;s fu.kZ; ds

QyLo:i /kkjk 3&gh ds vUrxZr �; dj@fc�h dj ls dj&eqfDr rHkh fey ldrh gS tc fu/kkZfjr izi= I 3&x I nkf[ky fd;k tk;s A ysfdu dHkh&dHkh

,slh ifjfLFkfr Hkh vk tkrh gS fd dj&eqfDr izkIr djuksokys O;kikjh dks nwljs O;kikjh }kjk fu/kkZfjr izi= tkjh ugh fd;k tkrk gS] ;|fi dj&eqfDr izkIr

djusokyk O;kikjh] fu/kkZfjr izi= u nsusokys O;kikjh ds dj&fu/kkZj.k vf/kdkjh ls lacaf/kr [kjhn@fc�h ij dj tek dk izek.k&i= izkIr dj izLrqr djrk

gS ''kklu dks ;g ekeyk bl lq>ko ds lkFk fd] dj&fu/kkZfj.k vf/kdkjh fu/kkZfjr izi= ds vHkko esa dj fu;ekuqlkj vkjksfir dj ns vksj VSDl tek ds

izek.k&i= ds vkk/kkj ij ,slk vkjksfir dj ekQ dj nsa vkSj ,sls vf/kdkj dj&fu/kkZj.k vf/kdkjh dks ns fn;s tk;s] lUnfHkZr fd;k x;k gS A ''kklu us vius

i= la ,l-Vh-&2&7484@ nl&87&9&88&I 176 I @84 fnukad 29-12-87 }kjk fuEu funsZ''k fn;s gSa&

mPp U;k;ky; dh O;oLFkk dh n''kk ls ;gh ekuk tk;sxk fd izi= ds vHkko esa NwV vuqeU; ugha dh tk ldrh A Qyr% nksuksa O;kikfj;ksa ij

fu;ekuqlkj dj vkjksfir djuk gksxk A rFkkfi pw�fd ,d inh; dj] O;oLFkk esa ,d oLrq ij ,d ls vf/kd okj dj yxkus dh ''kklu dh dksbZ eU''kk ugha gS]

vr% bl izLrko ij ''kklu dks vkifRr ugh gS fd ;fn ,d O;kikjh }kjk VSDl tek dk izek.k i= ns fn;k tkrk gS rks nwljs O;kikjh ij vkjksfir dj ekQ dj fn;k

tk;s vkSj ,slh ekQh dk vf/kdkj fu/kkZjd vf/kdkjh dks ns fn;k tk;s A rFkkfi dj dh ikQh dsoy bl vk/kkj ij fn;k tkuk mfpr u gksxk fd nwljs O;kikjh us

lacaf/kr lO;okgj ij dj tek dj fn;k gS vkSj mldk izek.k izLrqr dj fn;k gS A vfirq blds lkFk ;g Hkh vko'';d gksxk fd ,slk nwljk O;kikjh fyf[kr izk:i ls

fo�h dj vf/kdkjh dks bl vk''k; dk izkFkZuk i= ns fd mlus tks /kujkf''k lacaf/kr lO;ogkj ij dj ds :i esa tek dh gS mls dj&eqfDr dk nkok djusokys

O;kikjh dh vksj ls tek fd;k x;k ekuk tk;sa D;ksafd ,slk u djus ij ;fn igys O;kikjh ij vkjksfir dj ekQ dj fn;k tkrk gS vkSj nwljk O;kikjh] ftlus dj tek

fd;k gS] dj dh okilh dk nkok djrk gS rks mls tek dh xbZ /kujkf''k okil djus ls bUdkj fd;k tkuk lEHko u gksxk A

d''i;k rnuqlkj dk;Zokgh fd;k tkuk lqfuf''pr djsa vkSj bl laca/k esa iwoZ esa tkjh fd;s x;s ifji=ksa dks rnuqlkj la''kksf/kr le>k tk;s A**

4. In the above circular exclusive power of waiver has been given to the assessing officer. However, the Deputy Commissioner (Executive),

initiated proceeding u/s 10-B and thereafter passed the order indicating that the waiver of tax granted by the assessing officer is not justified

because certificate prescribed in the circular has not been furnished and order dated March 28, 1993 of the Deputy Commissioner passed u/s 10-

B is enclosed as annexure 2. Being aggrieved with the said order, the applicant-revisionist preferred second appeal before the learned Tribunal

which affirm the view of the Deputy Commissioner by its order dated March 5, 1998 (annexure 3).

5. The following questions has been submitted for the consideration :

(a) Whether, in view of the facts and circumstances, the Tribunal ought not have remanded back the case to the assessing authority to give further

opportunity and make further enquiries to obtain thecertificate as required under the circular dated January 15, 1988 when the selling dealer has

already paid the sales tax on the transaction and on the goods in question ?

6. It has been contended on behalf of the applicant-revisionist that in exercise of power u/s 10-B, the Deputy Commissioner has not correctly

appreciated the scope of circular dated January 15, 1988 and once the satisfaction has been derived by the assessing officer that for the goods in

question, the tax has already been paid by selling dealer, therefore, waiver granted by the assessing officer should have properly considered and

benefit should have been given to the petitioner.

7. In [19881 71 STC 1 (SC); 1988 UPTC 1204 (Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Prabhudayal Prem Narain) the Supreme Court has held that for

the failure to furnish form III-C(1) the assessee is not entitled to exemption and assessee cannot file any other evidence in place of the form for this

purpose.

The Supreme Court while taking the above view has reversed the 1982 UPTC 1094 (Prabhu Dayal Prem Narain v. Commissioner of Sales Tax)

where the court has held :

that the High Court in the impugned order was in error in directing the Tribunal to consider the matter on other evidence. The assessee is entitled

to exemption only on furnishing declaration forms. Since the assessee did not do so, he was not entitled to exemption."" (para 6 of UPTC ; page 3

of STC).

The Supreme Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Prabhudayal Prem Narain [1988] 71 STC 1 has approved [1988] 71 STC 4 (All.) [App.] ;

1985 UPTC 1060 (Govind Ram Tansukh Rai & Co. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax) where if the assessee had not furnished the required

declaration forms in order to be entitled for exemption, the assessee could not file any other evidence which required to be considered by the

taxing authorities and Supreme Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Prabhudayal Prem Narain [1988] 71 STC 1 has also relied on Kedarnath

Jute Manufacturing Co. Vs. Commercial Tax Officer, Calcutta and Others, : where ""the dealer could claim exemption on the sales to the registered

dealer by furnishing the declaration form and unless such declaration forms are furnished, the dealer was not entitled to any exemption and the

provisions of this nature was construed as mandatory"".

8. However, since the State Government has come with circular dated January 15, 1988 and undisputedly the tax has already been paid on the

goods in transaction in question, therefore, it is necessary that the assessing officer is treated to have power to give waiver but for that he has to

obey and observe the formalities and requirement of circular dated January 15, 1988 and therefore, view taken on March 5, 1998 by the learned

Tribunal is likely to be set aside. Therefore, the order dated March 5, 1998 is set aside and the matter is relegated to the assessee to verify and

obtain the required information and obtain certificate if necessary as required under circular dated January 15, 1988 to extend the benefit to the

applicant-revisionist accordingly. In these terms, the question of law is dealt accordingly.

9. A certified copy of this order shall be given to the learned counsel for the applicant who may produce the same to the concerned authority. The

assessing authority shall proceed with co-operation of the applicant-revisionist to expedite the matter preferably within four months.