This revision relates to the assessment year 1990-91 under the U.P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). In the present revision the following questions have been raised:
(1)"Whether the Trade Tax Tribunal was justified in fixing the enhanced turnover to the tune of Rs.2,50,00,000/- in the absence of any material on record?
(2)Whether the Trade Tax Tribunal was justified in rejecting the account books of the applicant on the alleged ground that the applicant has not furnished the detail of consumed and balance form 31 whereas the applicant has given the details of the same?
(3)Whether the Trade Tax Tribunal was justified in fixing the turnover of miscellaneous goods to the tune of Rs.50,00,000/- on the ground that the same has been shown in respect of Mathura Refinery in the absence of any adverse material on record?
(4)Whether in view of the judgments in the own case of the applicant for the assessment years 1987-88 and 1988, no tax can be legally imposed in respect of the supply of iron and steel to the contractors?
(5)Whether the Trade Tax Tribunal was legally justified in rejecting the form III-B / III-D to the tune of Rs.2,98,010.70 on the ground that the applicant has failed to submit the first copy as second copy was filed by the applicant?
(6)Whether the Trade Tax Tribunal was justified in rejecting the forms III-B / III-D to the tune of Rs.52,75,324/- on the ground that the same were turn at various places as well as in the absence of any finding of fact that the said forms are not genuine?
(7)Whether in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal is justified?
So far as question nos. 1, 2 & 3 are concerned, they relate to the estimate of turnover. A perusal of the order of the Tribunal reveals that the Tribunal has not referred the reasons for rejection of books of account and the estimate of turnover. In my view this aspect of the matter requires reconsideration by the Tribunal.
Question No. 4.
During the year under consideration, the applicant has got some works contract executed through the contractor and as per terms and contracts, provided iron steel to the contractor and while making the payment against the bill, the value of the iron steel has been deducted. The assessing authority levied the tax on the value of such iron steel supplied to the contractor treating the supply as a sale. The view of the assessing authority has been upheld in the first appeal and by the Tribunal. I do not find any error in the order. The issue involved is squarely covered by the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Karya Palak Engineer, C.P.W.D., Bikaner Vs. Rajasthan Taxation Board, Ajmer and others, reported in 2004 UPTC-1178. Therefore, this question is decided against the assessee.
Question No. 5.
Admittedly, in respect of the amount of Rs.2,98,010.70, the applicant has not submitted the first copy of the form and submitted the second copy. Rule 12-B (12) of the Trade Tax Rules (hereinafter referred to as "Rules") requires to furnish original copy of the certificate/Form 3-D. Rule 25-B (5) of the Rules provides furnishing of original copy of the Form 3-B for the claim of benefit of exemption or the concessional rate of tax, as the case may be. Admittedly, in the present case the original copy of the forms were not filed and, therefore, the assessing authority has denied the benefit of exemption/concessional rate of tax against such forms. This view has been upheld in first appeal and by the Tribunal. I do not find any error in the order of the Tribunal and the authorities below. In the case of India Agencies (Regd.), Bangalore Vs. Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bangalore, reported in JT 2005 (1) SC-16, the Apex Court has held that assessee furnished the duplicate Form C instead of original Form C. The benefit against the said form has been denied by the assessing authority and this view of the assessing authority has been upheld by the Apex Court. The Apex Court has held that the purpose of prescribing the filing of C-Form is that there should not be suppression of any inter-State sales by a selling dealer and evasion of tax to the State from where the actual sales are effected. Since the relevant Rule required that the portion of C Form marked "Original' should be furnished by the selling dealer to avail the concessional rate of tax on the inter-State sales, it is not open to the assessing authority to go into the rational of Rule 6 (b) (ii) of the Karnataka Rules and his duty is to simply implement without going into the question of any hardship that may be caused even to an hones dealer. Provisions of the relevant rules require a strict compliance with the provisions the assessee cannot claim the concessional rate of tax. Appellant assessee not having complied with the mandatory requirement of filing the portion marked "Original' of the C Form therefore not entitled to the concessional tax rate.
In the result, the revision is allowed in part. The matter is remanded back to the Tribunal to decide the issue relating to the rejection of books of account and estimate of turnover afresh. The other part of the order of the Tribunal is upheld.
Dated: 31st March, 2011 OP