High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Industrial Traders Katcheri Ghat, Agra v. The Commissioner Of Trade Tax U.P. Lucknow - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 1196 of 1995  RD-AH 727 (3 September 2004)
TRADE TAX REVISION NO.1196 OF 1995
TRADE TAX REVISION NO.1271 OF 1995
Industrial Traders, Agra. ....Applicant
The Commissioner of Trade Tax, U.P., Lucknow. ....Opp.Party
Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.
These two revisions under Section 11 of U.P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as "Act") are directed against the order of Tribunal dated 21.08.1995 relating to the assessment years 1984-85 and 85-86.
For the assessment year 1984-85 in respect of the sales for Rs.1,27,788.59p., applicant had filed Form-C and same was accepted and concessioinal rate of tax was levied. For the assessment year 1985-86 in the original assessment proceeding turn over of Rs.3,82,216.38p. against Form-C was accepted and tax was levied @ 1%. However, both the assessment orders were amended under section 22 and tax on the sales were assessed @ 12% rejected the Form-C as bogus. Further assessing authority passed order under section 22 of the Act for both the assessment years and demanded the interest under section 8 (1) of the Act treating the tax assessed as admitted tax. First appeal filed by the applicant was rejected. Applicant filed second appeals before the Tribunal, which were also rejected.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that in respect of the sales in dispute, the applicant had filed Form-C, obtained from the purchasing dealer and if for any reason, the aforesaid Form-C were held bogus, applicant could not be held responsible and in any view of the matter assessed tax can not be treated as admitted tax. In as much as applicant acted bonafidely. In support of his contention he relied upon the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Annapurna Biscuit Manufacturing Company Vs. State of U.P., reported in 1980 UPTC, 1320 and in the case of CST Vs. S/S Ram Das Ram Prakash, reported in 1985 UPTC, 843. Learned Standing Counsel supported the order of the Tribunal.
I have perused the order of Tribunal and the authorities below.
In the present case, admittedly, the applicant filed Form-C in respect of the inter-state transactions received from the purchaser. Assessing authority also accepted the Form-C in the original assessment proceeding. Subsequently, benefit of concessional rate of tax had been withdrawn on the ground that Form-C were bogus. Levy of higher rate of tax in not in dispute. Assessing authority under section 22 demanded the interest under section 8 (1) of the Act treating the assessed tax as admitted tax. I find force in the argument of the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant under the bonafide belief accepted the Form-C from the purchaser and if the Forms were found bogus, it was not the fault of the applicant. However, no case has been made out that there was any collusion between the applicant and purchasing dealer. Thus demand of interest under section 8 (1) of the Act on the facts and circumstances of the case was not justified. I also find force in the argument of the learned counsel for the applicant that the issue involved was debatable and therefore, by the order under section 22 interest can not be demanded.
In the circumstances, both the revisions are allowed and the order of the Tribunal is set aside and the interest demanded for the aforesaid years under the Central Sales Tax Act are deleted.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.