2007 (3) TMI 675 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Applicability of concessional tax rate u/s 4B of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948.
2. Validity of Notification No.KA.NI-2-5107/XI-7(159)/91-U.P. Act-15-48-Order (34)-2003, dated December 12, 2003.
3. Requirement of holding a recognition certificate for availing concessional tax rate.

Summary:

1. Applicability of Concessional Tax Rate u/s 4B of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948:

The applicant, engaged in the business of foodgrains, sold paddy to rice millers against form III-B and admitted tax at two per cent, whereas the normal rate was four per cent. The assessing authority rejected the claim of concessional rate and levied tax at four per cent. This decision was upheld by the first appeal and the Tribunal.

2. Validity of Notification No.KA.NI-2-5107/XI-7(159)/91-U.P. Act-15-48-Order (34)-2003, dated December 12, 2003:

The Tribunal held that the benefit u/s 4-B was available only to dealers holding a recognition certificate. The notification dated December 12, 2003, superseded the earlier notification dated February 17, 2000, and did not provide the benefit to dealers not holding a recognition certificate.

3. Requirement of Holding a Recognition Certificate for Availing Concessional Tax Rate:

The applicant argued that the notification dated December 12, 2003, issued u/s 4B, should also cover dealers not holding a recognition certificate. The learned Standing Counsel contended that the benefit was not available to such dealers as the proviso present in the earlier notification was omitted in the new one.

Upon review, it was found that both notifications were issued u/s 4B without specifying any sub-section or clause, thus applicable to all clauses of section 4B(1). The omission of the proviso in the new notification did not affect the benefit of the concessional rate of tax. The benefit is provided by the main part of the notification to a dealer on its sale to a dealer holding a valid recognition certificate, and the selling dealer is not required to hold a recognition certificate.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal's view was erroneous. It was held that a dealer not holding a recognition certificate is entitled to the benefit of the concessional rate of tax under the notification dated December 12, 2003, on its sale of notified goods to a dealer holding a recognition certificate u/s 4B(2) of the Act. The revision was allowed, and the Tribunal's order was set aside, directing the Tribunal to pass an appropriate order u/s 11(8) of the Act.