1. The present revision has been filed against the order of the Trade Tax Tribunal, Kanpur dated 8.2.2008 in second appeal no. 160 of 2003 for A.Y. 1999-00 (U.P.).
2. Heard Sri Praveen Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant-assessee and Sri B.K. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the revenue.
3. The present revision has been pressed on the following question of law:
"Whether the first appeal authority could have refused to consider the claim for grant of exemption on the basis of such Forms 3D which were found issued, solely on the reason of clerical mistake?"
4. Admittedly, for the assessment year in question, the assessee having sold goods to U.P. Jal Nigam against Form IIID, these sales were in excess to Rs. 1,00,000/-. They were not treated to be exempt as Forms IIID has not been furnished by the assessee up to the conclusion of assessment proceedings on 17.1.2002. In the first appeal filed by the assessee, it brought on record, by way of additional evidence, 29 such Forms IIID. 13 such Forms IIID had been found issued after April 2002. These were with respect to transactions worth Rs. 50,50,000/-. Another set of 16 Forms IIID were filed by the assessee with respect to transactions for sales worth Rs. 51,01,600/-. The appeal authority, after admitting all the Forms as additional evidence, called for a remand report. On the basis of that report, it refused the grant benefit to the assessee with respect to 13 numbers of Forms IIID pertaining to transactions of value Rs. 50,50,000/- on the reasoning that those Forms had been issued beyond a period of 2 years from the end of A.Y. 1999-2000. To that extent, there can be no challenge, in view of the fact that the said reasoning arises and is based on the provision of law namely the first proviso to Rule 12-C(3) of the U.P. Trade Tax Rules, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). That reasoning is also consistent with the view taken by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of K.B. Hides Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., 2004 UPTC 292.
5. However, with respect to the remaining 16 Forms IIID, the first appeal authority itself recorded a finding that some of those Forms had been issued within six months from the date of amendment made to Rule 12-C of the Rules (whereby the stipulation was first introduced that the Forms must be issued within six months from the date of amendment).
6. After making such observation, the first appeal authority rejected the entire claim on the reasoning that some of those Forms IIID had not been verified by the assessing authority of the issuing dealers.
7. The aforesaid order of the first appeal authority was challenged by the assessee before the Tribunal. However, the Tribunal had also rejected the appeal for the same reason.
8. Learned counsel for the assessee would submit, once the first appeal authority had reached the conclusion that the Forms had been validly issued, it should have called for a further remand report or should have given the assessee an opportunity to seek rectification of the same, in light of the provision of Rule 12-C(7) of the Rules.
9. While learned Standing Counsel would submit that it was the duty of the assessee to have brought on record duly filled and verified Forms IIID, however, in view of the facts noted above, it is clear that there was no illegality in atleast some of the forms, where the first appeal authority found the same to have been issued within time. As to the non-verification by the assessing authority of the issuing dealer, Rule 12-C(7) of the Rules fully takes care of that situation, inasmuch as it allows the authority to return the form to the assessee to enable him to seek rectification in the same. Insofar as no additional fact was to be recorded and no material addition was to be made on such Forms and only the verification was to be made by the assessing authority of the issuing dealer, the appeal authority could have itself sent the forms for necessary verification to that authority or may have allowed the assessee one limited opportunity to seek that verification in accordance with the provisions of Rule 12-C(7) of the Rules.
10. To that extent, the appeal authorities have erred. The question of law (as framed above) is answered accordingly. The matter is remitted to the first appeal authority to pass appropriate orders, in light of the observations made above.
11. Accordingly, the present revision is allowed.
Order Date :- 26.7.2019 Prakhar