High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
The Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P. Lkw. v. S/S Sita Ram Dal And Oil Mill, Orai - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 771 of 2004  RD-AH 3472 (23 September 2005)
TRADE TAX REVISION NO.771 of 2004.
The Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P., Lucknow. Applicant
S/S Sita Ram Dal and Oil Mill, Orai. . Opp.Party.
Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.
Present revision under Section 11 of U.P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as "Act") is directed against the order of Tribunal dated 15th December, 2004 relating to the assessment year 1990-91 arising from the proceeding under section 21 of the Act.
The dealer/opposite party (hereinafter referred to as "the dealer") was carrying on the business of food grains, oil seeds etc and made purchases for Rs.98, 05.691.50 paise from M/S Narain Trading Company, Jalaun against 9 R (purchase of pulses) and received Form 3-C (2) in respect of such purchases. During the course of assessment proceeding, dealer furnished Form 3-C (2) and claimed exemption on the aforesaid purchases.. The assessing authority, in the original assessment proceeding on the basis of Form 3-C (2) allowed the exemption on the aforesaid purchases. Proceeding under section 21 of the Act was initiated on the basis of information that Firm Narain Trading Company, Jalaun was a dummy Firm formed with the view to evade the tax. The assessing authority accordingly disallowed the claim of exemption on the purchases of Rs. 98,05,691.50 paise against form 3-C (2) received from M/S Narain Trading Company, Jalaun. First appeal filed by the dealer was allowed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) , Trade Tax, Orai. The Appellate Authority held that the purchases were made against 9 R. and it was not the case of the revenue that the said firm M/S Narain Trading Company, Jalaun was not registered dealer and the said Form 3-C (2) was not issued to it by the department.. First appellate authority held that on account of change of opinion, the claim of exemption has been illegally refused and the tax has been levied. Commissioner of Trade Tax filed appeal before the Tribunal. Tribunal by the impugned order rejected the appeal.
Heard learned Standing Counsel.
I do not find any error in the order of the Tribunal. It is settled principle of law that unless the form is found to be forged or is obtained as a result of collusion, the exemption cannot be disallowed. In the present case, no case has been made out that the form was forged. The dealer had made purchases from M/S Narain Trading Company, Jalaun against 9 R and necessary entries have been made in the books of account. It is not the case of the revenue that M/S Narain Trading Company, Jalaun was not the registered dealer and the said Form 3-C (2) was not issued by the department to M/S Narain Trading Company, Jalaun and said form was forged. Order of the Tribunal is accordingly upheld. Reliance is placed on the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of M/S Chunni Lal Parshadi Lal Versus Commissioner of Sales Tax reported in 1986 UPTC 747 and this Court in the case of M/S Bharat Iron Stores Versus Commissioner of Sales Tax reported in 1994 UPTC 130.
In the result, revision fails and is accordingly, dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.