JUDGMENT M.C. Agarwal, J.
1. By this revision petition under Section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 the Commissioner of Trade Tax challenges an order dated November 15, 1994, passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal, Moradabad, in Second Appeal No. 815 of 1991 for the assessment year 1979-80 under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.
2. I have heard Sri U.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the Commissioner, and Sri R.K. Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondent.
3. The following question of law is stated to arise from the Tribunal's order :
"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, is the learned Tribunal legally justified to order the refund of Rs. 44,683 which is the Central sales tax charged by the assessee from the customers, and further to hold that the liability to pay interest, on tax levied on Central sales tax made to Canteen Stores Department will occur only from date March 25, 1983? (sic)"
4. As regards the question relating to the refund of Rs. 44,683, the same is covered by the judgment pronounced today in Trade Tax Revision Nos. 196 and 197 of 1995 Commissioner, Trade Tax v. Rampur Distillery and Chemicals Co. Ltd., Reported in [2003] 133 STC 172 (All.) and for the reasons stated therein, the Tribunal's order on the point is upheld.
5. As regards the liability to pay interest under Section 8(1) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act read with the Central Sales Tax Act, the Tribunal has held that up to May 25, 1983, the assessee was raising a bona fide dispute about the taxability of the inter-State sales of IMFL to the Canteen Stores Department and, therefore, it did not admit its liability up to that date and was not liable to pay any, interest. This view is in accord with the judgment of the honourable Supreme Court in J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. Commercial Taxes Officer [1994] 94 STC 422 ; 1994 UPTC 893, which was followed by this Court in Annapurna Biscuit Manufacturing Co. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax 1995 UPTC 1192 and United Coplex (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Trade Tax 1995 UPTC 168. The Tribunal's order on this point also requires no interference.
The revision petition thus has no force and is hereby dismissed.