1994 (11) TMI 416 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Determination of purchases made in the course of inter-State trade or commerce.
2. Interpretation of U.P. Sales Tax (Amendment and Validation) Ordinance, 1990.
3. Review applications based on the provisions of the Ordinance.
4. Barred review application due to lapse of the Ordinance.
5. Retrospective effect of procedural laws on review of past cases.
6. Applicability of section 12-A(2) of U.P. Sales Tax Act on Central Sales Tax Act transactions.

Analysis:
The judgment revolves around the determination of purchases made in the course of inter-State trade or commerce. The Tribunal initially held that the purchases were made on behalf of an ex-U.P. principal in inter-State trade. The dealer had issued form IIIC to the seller certifying the purchases. The U.P. Sales Tax (Amendment and Validation) Ordinance, 1990, amended section 12-A, placing the burden of proof on the dealer claiming exemption from tax. The Commissioner moved review applications based on this provision, aiming to establish the dealer as the first purchaser of the goods.

The Court rejected the first review application as the Ordinance had lapsed, rendering it infructuous. The second application was also dismissed as it was time-barred under the new Ordinance. The Court emphasized that rule 12-A(2) is procedural and cannot be applied retrospectively to cases already decided. The insertion of subsection (2) to section 12-A cannot be a ground for reviewing concluded matters.

Furthermore, the Court highlighted the debatable issue of whether section 12-A(2) could determine the nature of transactions under the Central Sales Tax Act. This ambiguity further solidified the rejection of the review applications. The judgment concluded by dismissing the review applications, stating the lack of merit in seeking a review based on the amended provisions of the U.P. Sales Tax Act.

In essence, the judgment underscores the limitations of applying procedural laws retrospectively to concluded cases and the need for clarity in interpreting provisions that impact inter-State trade transactions under different tax acts.