1981 (2) TMI 225 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
Validity of a single certificate in form III-C(1) covering multiple transactions under the U.P. Sales Tax Act.

Detailed Analysis:
The case involved a revision under section 11(1) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act concerning the validity of a single certificate in form III-C(1) covering more than one transaction. The respondent-assessee, a co-operative society, claimed exemption from tax on purchases of gur amounting to Rs. 1,35,345.00 by submitting a single certificate in form III-C(1) stating that the purchases had already suffered tax. However, the assessing authority rejected this claim, stating that a single certificate covering multiple transactions was not valid under Rule 12-B of the Act. The appellate authority upheld this decision, but the Additional Judge (Revisions) disagreed, stating that without evidence of tax not being deposited by the selling dealers, the assessee could not be considered the first purchaser and liable for tax.

The court examined Rule 12-B of the Act, which mandates that a certificate in form III-C(1) should be issued for each transaction, and no single certificate should cover more than one transaction. Referring to a similar case, the court emphasized that the certificate filed by the assessee, covering multiple transactions, should not be rejected entirely. Instead, the assessee should be given the opportunity to specify the transaction for which the certificate applies to claim exemption from tax under section 3-D(2) of the Act. The court concluded that while the revision was allowed, the case should be remanded to the Sales Tax Tribunal for a decision based on the assessee's choice of transaction to be covered by the certificate.

In light of the above analysis, the court held that a single certificate in form III-C(1) covering multiple transactions could not grant blanket exemption from tax but allowed the assessee the chance to select the transaction for which exemption could be claimed. The revising authority's decision was deemed erroneous in law, and the case was remanded for further proceedings to determine the specific transaction for tax exemption under section 3-D(2) of the Act.