Court No. - 1
Case :- SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 1740 of 2007 Revisionist :- M/S Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. Opposite Party :- Commissioner Trade Tax Counsel for Revisionist :- Shakeel Ahmad Counsel for Opposite Party :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. Heard Shri Shakeel Ahmad, learned counsel for the applicant-assessee and Shri B.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the revenue.
2. Present revision has been filed by the assessee against the order of the Trade Tax Tribunal, Saharanpur dated 27.09.2007 in Second Appeal No. 302 of 2005 for A.Y. 2002-03 (U.P.).
3. The present revision has been pressed on the following questions of law:
"A. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the supply of cement and iron to contractors for construction of Mill's building and adjusted at the time of payment to them be termed as sale?
B. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in confirming the addition of alleged sale of diesel whereas the diesel was never sold by the dealer both U.P. purchased and imported?
C. Whether upon the facts and circumstances of the case, the imposition of tax on purchases made from unregistered dealers can be subjected to tax within the meaning of Section 3 AAAA of the U.P. Trade Tax Act; despite the disclosed production has been accepted by the assessing authority?
D. Whether upon the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in confirming the addition made due to non-submission of Form 3 B of the Act whereas no opportunity and time was granted by the Assessing Officer to submit the same?"
4. It is seen that question nos. A and C are common to question nos. E and A respectively raised in Sales/Trade Tax Revision No. 1394 of 2007 (M/s. Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Trade Tax, U.P., Lucknow) for A.Y. 2000-01 (U.P.). That revision has been decided today (31.07.2019). Hence, question nos. A and C are thus answered on the same terms.
5. Insofar as question no. B is concerned, it appears from perusal of the Tribunal's order that the assessee had charged value for supply of diesel made by it to the transporters. That finding of fact has not been assailed as perverse. According to the books of accounts and the documents examined during the assessment proceedings, the assessee was itself found to have charged value for supply of diesel. Clearly, it had sold that commodity. Accordingly, there is no error in the order of the Tribunal.
6. Insofar as question no. D is concerned, the assessee has been saddled with liability to pay tax with respect to sales performed by it on promise of purchasing dealer to issue Form III-B, i.e. the goods would be sold on the representation made by the purchasing dealer that under Section 4-B of the Act, it was entitled to purchase raw materials at concessional rate of tax. However, it is undisputed that such Forms III-B were not issued to the assessee and, therefore, by way of a legal consequence, tax liability has been imposed on the assessee at the full rate and no concession has been granted to it. In view of the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in C.C.T. Vs. Control Switch Gears Company Ltd., 2010 UPTC 1073, since the claim made by the assesssee was dependent on the issue of statutory Forms and those Forms were not issued, the assessee was liable to pay full tax treating the same as admitted tax liability. Therefore, this question of law is answered in the affirmative, i.e. in favour of the revenue and against the assessee.
7. In view of the above, the revision lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 31.7.2019 AHA