9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (11) TMI 261X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the respondent No. 1 raising any dispute with regard to the claim of exemption from tax on the sale against form III-B made to the manufacturer of tin containers. According to the petitioner, it has mainly sold tin-plates to the manufacturer of tin containers. The manufacturers of the tin containers, on their purchases, normally issued form III-B as contemplated under section 413 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 and claimed full exemption of tax. The container is one of the notified goods of annexure III of the Notification No. ST-II-2958/X-9(1)-76 dated May 20, 1976, issued under section 413 of the Act. Under that only those manufacturers are entitled to the benefit of exemption who are the holders of the recognition certificate under se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d March 7, 1990, annexure IV to the petition, has been issued to the petitioner. The said notice refers to wrong grant of total exemption of the aforesaid goods as the petitioner was entitled for a partial exemption and thereafter the petitioner filed reply. According to the petitioner the reply was actually accepted by the Sales Tax Officer once again and again prepared a draft order and sent for approval to the Assistant Commissioner (Executive), Sales Tax, Ghaziabad. The said order according to the petitioner did not suit to the respondent No. 2. He had again directed the Sales Tax Officer to make further enquiry in the matter. In pursuance of the same the present impugned notice dated June 27, 1990, has been issued by the concerned resp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the latter were entitled to purchase tin-sheets at concessional rates of four per cent and not without payment of the tax as claimed by the petitioner. For this the petitioner is being given opportunity by means of the aforesaid show cause notice. They have relied on the copies of the recognition certificate filed by the petitioner that they were entitled to purchase material sold only on concessional rates as the petitioner himself admitted a tax liability of Rs. 61,700. However, in this case it is not necessary for us to give any finding in respect of the respective claim made by the petitioner or the concerned respondent. The only question necessary for us to decide is regarding the show cause notice issued by the respondents which is im ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... March 7, 1990, that in fact this is initiation of proceeding under section 22 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act which is independent of the proceedings for refund of the amount by the petitioner. In the present case we are not adjudicating anything in this writ petition pertaining to the notice dated March 7, 1990. However, the respondent-authority in case has modified or rectified the assessment order in those proceedings, then it can always act on the basis of that order. Till that period any enquiry in the proceeding under section 22 of the Act, initiated by the petitioner, for the refund of the amount deposited in excess could not be held. On behalf of the petitioner it has been urged that even annexure IV is actually the initiation of proceed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
