JUDGMENT Rajes Kumar, J.
1. Present revision under Section 11 of U.P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as "Act") is directed against the order of Tribunal dated 14.10.1999 relating to the assessment year 1991-92.
2. Dealer/opposite party (hereinafter referred to as "Dealer") was engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of paint, varnishes and synthetic resin. Dealer was holding recognition certificate under Section 4-B of the Act for "paint and all kinds of allied material" Dealer was entitled for purchase of raw material without any tax. During the year under consideration, dealer had purchased raw material without payment of tax against Form 3-B and used such material in the manufacturing of synthetic resin. Synthetic resin was sold as such. Assessing authority levied the penalty under Section 4-B(5) of the Act on the ground that dealer was not holding recognition certificate for synthetic resin and had used raw material in the manufacturing of synthetic resin in violation of provision of Section 4-B of the Act. First appeal filed by the dealer was allowed. Tribunal by the impugned order confirmed the order of first appellate authority. Tribunal held that synthetic resin is covered under "All kinds of allied materials" for which dealer was holding recognition certificate under Section 4-B of the Act and thus, there was no violation of Section 4-B of the Act. Tribunal while coming to the conclusion that it is one of allied material required for use in the manufacturing of paint, relied upon the certificate issued by Sri M.S. Saxena an expert from HBTI of Oil and Paint Technology Department.
3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
4. Learned Standing Counsel submitted that the order of the Tribunal is erroneous. He submitted that synthetic resin is not covered under "All kinds of allied materials" for which registration certificate was issued. He submitted that dealer was not granted registration for synthetic resin, thus, raw material purchased against Form 3-B was wrongly used in the manufacturing of synthetic resin in violation of Section 4-B of the Act, learned Counsel for the dealer submitted that the issue involved in the present case is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in the case of CST v. Pankaj Paints, Bareilly reported in 1993 UPTC 605. In the said case, dealer was holding recognition certificate for paint and varnishes. Raw materials, which were purchased against Form 3-B, were used in the manufacturing of synthetic resin. On the consideration of the entry of notification No. ST-II-7551/X-9(1)-76-U.P. Act-15/48-Order-76, dated 31.12.1976, which reads as "Paints, varnishes, enamels, thinners and allied surface casting products and constituents thereof". this Court held that synthetic resin is covered under the word "All kinds of allied surface casting and constituents thereof. It has been held that there may be technical violation in not getting synthetic resin mentioned in the recognition certificate but under the entry of the notification, dealer was entitled to purchase the raw material against Form 3-B without payment of tax for the use in the manufacturing of synthetic resin. Present case is on the better footing than the case in the case of CST v. Pankaj Paints, Bareilly (Supra). In the present case dealer was holding recognition certificate for "All kinds of allied materials". Synthetic resin has been held covered under "All kinds of allied materials" by the Tribunal. I do not find any reason to interfere with the order of Tribunal. Reasoning of the Tribunal is supported by the certificate of Shri M.S. Saxena, an expert from HBTI of Oil and Paint Technology Department. Learned Standing Counsel is not able to place any material to the contrary. The decision of this Court in the case of CST v. Pankaj Paints, Bareilly (Supra) also supports the case of the dealer.
5. In the result, revision fails is accordingly, dismissed, Dt. 06.0.1.2006