JUDGMENT Prakash Krishna, J.
1. The dealer/opposite party, a public limited company is registered in the name of M/s. Sadi Ram Ganga Prasad Ltd. with the Trade Tax Department and had obtained recognition certificate under Section 4B(2) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 hereinafter referred to as ("the Act") for the purchase of wheat for manufacturing of atta, maida, sooji on concessional rates. It is authorised to purchase tin plates at concessional rates of tax for the purpose of manufacturing tin containers under Section 4B of the Act. The present revision arises out of proceedings initiated by the department under Section 4B(6) of the Act on the ground that the dealer/applicant after manufacturing tin containers has transferred the same to its other units.
2. In reply to the show cause penalty notice, the dealer/applicant submitted that it has the following three manufacturing units, namely, (i) Ganges Flour Mill; (ii) Ganges Oil Mill; and (iii) Ganges Tin Works. Tin plates were purchased by M/s. Sadi Ram Ganga Prasad. The tin containers were transferred to M/s. Ganges Oil Mill to pack and sell oil. This transfer of tin containers to another unit does not amount to breach of any of the conditions of Section 4B of the Act inasmuch as M/s. Ganges Oil Mill is also unit of M/s. Sadi Ram Ganga Prasad Ltd., which is a company and registered dealer as such with the department.
3. The assessing authority levied penalty on the premise that the transfer of tin containers thus purchased against form 3-B to other units of company amounts to breach of Section 4B(2) of the Act. The Deputy Commissioner (Appeal) set aside the aforesaid order on the ground that the transfer of the tin containers to other units of the company does not amount to violation of Section 4B(6) of the Act, that such transfer does not amount to otherwise disposal of the tin containers. This order has been confirmed in the second appeal by the Tribunal under revision.
4. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. The learned Standing Counsel submitted that the transfer of the tin containers by one unit to another amounts to violation of provisions of Section 4B of the Act. Elaborating the argument it was submitted that the tin containers thus manufactured by the opposite party after availing benefit under Section 4B of the Act for purchase of raw material, should have been sold in the State of U.P., or as Central sales or in the course of export sales outside India. Sri Bharatji Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel for the dealer/opposite party contended that M/s. Sadi Ram Ganga Prasad has three units and recognition certificate was granted to M/s. Sadi Ram Ganga Prasad and, therefore, the transfer of tin containers from one unit to another of the dealer would not amount to violation of Section 4B(2) and 4B(6) of the Act.
6. I have given my careful consideration to the respective submission of the learned Counsel for the parties. In view of the finding of the authorities below that the recognition certificate was granted to M/s. Sadi Ram Ganga Prasad the transfer of tin containers by one of its unit to another unit would not in any way violate the conditions of Section 4B of the Act. So far as the department is concerned M/s. Sadi Ram Ganga Prasad is a "dealer" within the meaning of the Act. It has three units in the State of U.P. The transfer of goods from one unit to another is internal arrangement and it does not amount to transfer of goods from one person to another. From the order of the authorities below it is not clear as to whether the tin containers were sold by way of sale in the State or in the course of inter-State trade or commerce or in the course of export out of the territory of India. The assessing officer has found that the dealer/opposite party was not assessed on the turnover of tin containers. The Tribunal has observed that if the assessing authority has failed to levy the tax or frame proper assessment order, no fault lies with the dealer. But from the penalty order it does not appear that the penalty proceeding was initiated on this ground also. The penalty was levied on the ground that the transfer of tin containers by one unit to another is not permissible under Section 4B(6) of the Act.
7. In the result, the revision is dismissed. No order as to costs.