2000 (2) TMI 794 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
Dispute over turnover of purchase of rice bran for exemption from tax under section 4-B of U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948.

Analysis:
1. The revision challenged the Trade Tax Tribunal's order allowing the Second Appeal for the assessment year 1988-89 filed by S/s. Malti Devi regarding the turnover of rice bran purchase.
2. The dealer claimed exemption from tax under section 4-B(1)(a-1) for purchasing rice bran on behalf of a recognition certificate holder, but the assessing authority rejected the claim stating the dealer was not a recognition certificate holder.
3. The Tribunal accepted the dealer's claim based on a previous court decision and the notification dated September 7, 1981, listing rice bran as a notified good.
4. The State argued that rice bran was not a declared commodity under section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act and no exemption notification was issued by the State Government.
5. The dealer contended that the notification dated September 7, 1981, and the court decision in Hari Om Gupta's case justified the exemption claim for rice bran.
6. The dealer was found to be the first purchaser of rice bran and not a recognition certificate holder, failing to meet the conditions for exemption under section 4-B(1)(a-1).
7. The dealer must fulfill two conditions for exemption: the commodity must be a declared good under section 3-D and a notification granting exemption must exist.
8. The term "declared goods" refers to goods declared under section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act, which does not include rice bran.
9. The decision in Hari Om Gupta's case was distinguished, emphasizing the separate identity of rice bran as a commercial commodity.
10. The Supreme Court's interpretation in a similar case highlighted the distinct taxation of different commercial commodities.
11. Rice bran was recognized as a separate commercial commodity from rice, thus not meeting the requirements for exemption under section 4-B(1)(a-1).
12. The second condition for exemption, a notification from the State Government, was also not fulfilled for rice bran.
13. The Tribunal's decision was overturned, and the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) order was reinstated, denying the exemption claim for rice bran.