JUDGMENT R.R. Misra, J.
1. Aggrieved against the order dated 11th January, 1987 passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal in regard to the footwear business for the assessment year 1979-80, the assessee has preferred this revision.
2. Heard the parties and considered the facts.
3. In this case the dispute primarily relates to the sales of shoes of Rs. 56,000 sold from 1st May, 1979 to 31st March, 1980. It may be mentioned that up to 30th April, 1979 footwear was taxable at the point of sale to the consumer. The assessee was a registered dealer and purchased footwear against form 3-A. With effect from 1st May, 1979 the turnover of footwear became taxable at the point of first purchase. The assessee had a stock of Rs. 52,657 on 1st May, 1979. The stock of footwear was evidently purchased against form 3-A. Out of this stock sales were estimated at Rs. 46,000. All the sales were made to unregistered dealers. There was no first purchase of these goods under Section 3-D(1) as the purchases had taken place prior to 1st May, 1979 when shoes did not come within the ambit of Section 3-D of the U.P. Sales Tax Act. There was, therefore, no first purchase with effect from 1st May, 1979 or afterwards. Admittedly, the sales were made to persons other than registered dealers. The Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) held that the tax was leviable under Section 3-D(2) of the Sales Tax Act which provides that in respect of any sale of goods notified under Sub-section (1) of Section 3-D shall be assessed at the same rate as notified under Sub-section (1) if the purchaser is a person other than a registered dealer. In this case the assessee sold goods to person other than unregistered dealers.
4. In view of a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. v. Babu Ram Mohan Lal, Deoria 1987 UPTC 317 and an another single Judge decision of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Liberty Shoes Store, Jawahar Gate, Ghaziabad 1987 STD (High Court), 105, I find that if the goods in stocks as on 1st May, 1979 not already taxed prior to that date, they would be liable to tax under Section 3-D(2) of the Sales Tax Act. I find that there is no error of law committed by the Sales Tax Tribunal in the impugned order dismissing the appeal of the assessee. The case of Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Sri Ram Raghunath Prasad 1984 UPTC 989 relied upon by the learned counsel for the assessee has already been considered by a Division Bench in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. v. Babu Ram Mohan Lal, Deoria 1987 UPTC 317.
5. In the result, the revision fails and is dismissed with costs which are assessed at Rs. 200.