1. Heard Shri K.N. Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri B.K. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the revenue.
2. The present revision has been filed by the assessee against the order of the Trade Tax Tribunal, Noida dated 19.03.2008 in Second Appeal No. 503 of 2006 for A.Y. 2002-03 (central).
3. The assessee had, during the assessment year in question, supplied certain godown flooring material to the Food Corporation of India for use at its different godowns across the country. With respect to the supply of such godown flooring material made outside the State of U.P., the assessee claims that it was entitled to receive statutory Form C from the Food Corporation of India. While benefit of all valid statutory Forms C has been granted to the assessee, the present dispute revolves around certain Forms C which could not be submitted by the assessee for the reason that the issuing assessing authority of the Food Corporation of India in certain States did not issue those Forms to the Food Corporation of India. Also, benefit claimed by the assessee against four photocopies of Form C has been denied. While the tax amount arising from such dispute has been paid by the assessee, it claims that it is not liable to suffer interest liability with respect to Form C not submitted, as it was not the responsibility of the assessee to have obtained Form C from different assessing authority of the Food Corporation of India.
4. Insofar as it is not disputed that the sale had been made to a government corporation and the claim came to be rejected only by means of the assessment order, it has been submitted that the interest liability should accrue treating the same to be disputed liability from the date relevant to the assessment order and not from the date relevant to the transaction.
5. Learned Standing Counsel places reliance on a Division Bench decision of this Court in Commissioner Trade Tax Vs. S/S Control Switch Gears Company Ltd., 2010 UPTC 1073. Precise questions involved in that reference made to the Division Bench, were as have been noted in paragraph 2 of that Report, which reads thus:
"2. The learned single Judge had framed the following questions, which according to his esteemed opinion required consideration by the Full Bench.
(a) In view of fact that the requisite Forms for the claim of exemption/concession is required to be filed during the course of assessment proceeding as per rule and in case of non furnishing of form during the assessment proceeding tax is levied at the normal rate whether, interest under section 8 (1) can be demanded from the due date of the return in which turnover was disclosed and exemption/concession has been claimed and tax at the normal rate has not been paid or from the date of assessment order or under section 8 (1-B) in case of non payment even after the assessment order.
(b) Whether in case of non furnishing of requisite form by the time of assessment proceeding, the tax assessed at a normal rate can be said to be tax admittedly payable under section 8 (1) of the Act.
(c) Whether there is any scope for the consideration of legitimate expectation or hope or bonafide belief under section 8 (1) of the Act and what is the stage of determination of liability of tax whether return or assessment."
6. Those questions were answered by the Division Bench in the following terms:
"30. In view of the foregoing discussions, we are of the considered opinionthat -
1. Even though declaration form for claiming exemption/concession may be required to be filed during the course of assessment proceedings but, in cases of non-furnishing of declaration forms during the assessment proceedings or subsequent thereto in appeal, tax has to be levied at the normal rate which would become the admitted tax and interest under Section 8(1) of the Act would be leviable from the due date of the return in which turnover was disclosed and exemption/concession has been claimed and tax at the normal rate has not been paid. The provisions of section 8 (1-B) of the Act would not be applicable.
2. Non-furnishing of requisite form by the time of assessment proceedings or in appellate proceedings, the tax assessed at the normal rate would be treated as the tax admittedly payable under section 8(1) of the Act.
3. There is no scope for consideration of legitimate expectation or hope or bona fide plea under Section 8(1) of the Act and the stage of determination of liability of tax for the purposes of Section 8(1) would be the date for filing the return."
7. In view of the categorical answer given by the Division Bench, there is no room for any discussion or a different opinion being formed. As to the further submission advanced by learned counsel for the assessee that benefit should have been given with respect to photocopies of four Forms C, the same does not merit consideration, as photocopies of documents can never be admissible as evidence, even, in the proceedings before the taxing authority. The provisions are rule driven and rule does not contemplate any such benefit to be allowed.
8. Revision lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 26.7.2019 AHA