2013 (5) TMI 761 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Form 3D rejected - entitled for concessional rate of tax rejected - Held that - A bare perusal of the form 3D would show that it requires a certificate 14 by the purchasing dealer certifying that the goods other than electrical energy are meant for its own requirement and are not meant for resale or for use in manufacturing or packing of any goods. Undoubtedly, the said declaration is there in the 3D form. The assessing authority has not pointed out any error or defect in the said form. It is not a case of the Department that the said form is either not genuine or is fabricated one. A bare perusal of the impugned order would show that the assessing 15 authority has somehow rejected the claim of the petitioner by making an observation that generally the U.P. Jal Nigam carries on the works for other Departments. The said observation is not based on any material on record. Further, there is no finding in the impugned order that two vertical pumps sold by the petitioner were resold by the U.P. Jal Nigam. Therefore, find that the observation that Jal Nigam works for other 17 Department generally is wholly perverse and is against the material on record. Appeal allowed - authority concerned is directed to grant the benefit of form 3D No. 0010711 and pass consequential order granting concessional rate of tax to the petitioner.

Summary

Issues involved:
Challenging rejection of form 3D for concessional tax rate by assessing authority.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a registered company under U.P. Trade Tax Act and Central Sales Tax Act, filed a writ petition against the order rejecting form 3D for concessional tax rate. The assessing authority accepted account books but denied concessional rate due to missing form 3D. The Tribunal allowed submission of form 3D as additional evidence. However, the assessing authority rejected the form citing U.P. Jal Nigam's role for other departments under U.P. Trade Tax Act, disallowing concessional rate.

The petitioner argued that U.P. Jal Nigam's functions include providing water facilities, and the goods were water pumps, not for resale. They contended that any fault in form 3D issuance by Jal Nigam should not affect them. Legal precedents were cited to support their case. The respondents argued that the assessing authority's finding was factual and petitioner had to prove goods were not resold.

The court analyzed U.P. Water Supply and Sewerage Act, highlighting Jal Nigam's functions and powers. It noted the assessing authority's lack of evidence on goods' resale by Jal Nigam. The court found the rejection based on Jal Nigam's general works for other departments as unfounded and against the evidence.

Consequently, the court quashed the impugned order and directed granting the benefit of form 3D for concessional tax rate to the petitioner. The petition was allowed without costs.