Commissioner of Trade Tax, Dehradun vs Citurgia Biochemical Ltd.

Prafulla C. Pant, J.—This revision, filed u/s 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948, is directed against the order dated February 4, 2009, passed by the Commercial Tax Tribunal, Uttarakhand, in Second Appeal No. 47 of 2004 (assessment year 1992-93 provincial) whereby the said authority has dismissed the appeal. Heard.

The respondent/dealer who is doing business of sale of calcium carbonate submitted return of his turnover for the assessment year 1992-93 provincial before the assessing officer in which he claimed concessional rate of tax on the basis of form IIIB issued by the purchaser to the dealer. The assessing officer charged tax at 10 per cent in respect of the sale which was though mentioned in the form IIIB but exceeded period of more than a quarter, and declined to grant concession in the rate of tax. Aggrieved by the said order of the assessing officer, the dealer preferred appeal before the Joint Commissioner, Trade Tax, who allowed the appeal and ignored the fact that the single form IIIB contained transactions for a period of more than a quarter. Thus the Revenue filed second appeal before the Commercial Tax Tribunal which dismissed the same. Hence this revision.

Rule 25B of the U.P. Trade Tax Rules, 1948, provides that where the dealer holding a recognition certificate purchases any goods referred to in clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 4B, for use as raw material for the purpose of manufacture of any notified goods, he shall, if he wishes, avail of the concession referred to therein, furnish to the selling dealer a certificate in form DIB (declaration form).

The only question raised before this court is that whether the Commercial Tax Tribunal and the Joint Commissioner, Commercial Tax, erred in law in accepting the sale transaction mentioned in single declaration form IIIB for concessional rate of tax which pertains to a period of more than a quarter.

The Tribunal as well as the first appellate authority has taken note of the fact that even if declaration form IIIB contained sale transactions of two quarters in a single form that by itself is not sufficient to deny the concessional rate of tax to the dealer.

Having gone through the impugned order passed by the Tribunal we are of the view that since for a complete assessment year normally rate of tax remains the same for a commodity, as such merely for the reason that single declaration contained entries of more than a quarter is not sufficient ground to deny the dealer the concessional rate of tax in respect of an item which is sold as a raw material to the purchaser.

Therefore, we do not find any illegality in the order passed by the Commercial Tax Tribunal upholding the order of the first appellate authority in the matter. For the reasons as discussed above, the substantial question of law stands answered against the Revenue and the revision is hereby dismissed.