9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (1) TMI 501X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the deductions or exemptions have been wrongly allowed. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel. 2.. The facts in brief are that the petitioner manufactures steel wires which are used as raw material by other manufacturers of certain notified items. The petitioner sells the manufactured steel wires to other dealers. In the present case certain sales were made to purchasers who held eligibility certificate granted to them under section 4-B of the U.P. Trade Tax Act. Section 4-B of the U.P. Trade Tax Act provides special relief to certain manufacturers. There may be total exemption from payment of tax or its payment on concessional rate. This concession is available to a dealer, who requires the goods ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t to be reopened on the ground that the purchasing dealers who had furnished form 3-Kha to the petitioner could not be totally exempted from payment of sales tax in the relevant assessment year. The case of the petitioner is that this cannot be a ground for reopening of the assessment under section 21 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act. The submission is that in case the purchasing dealer was not entitled for full exemption which may have been wrongly made admissible to him by the appropriate authority on his application under section 4-B of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, it may be open to the authorities to initiate proceeding, for cancellation of the eligibility certificate or to proceed under section 3-B of the U.P. Trade Tax Act if legally permissible. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hasing dealer, if legally permissible under the law. We would like to observe that the case of the opposite parties does not seem to be that the eligibility certificate furnished, was false or fake but if at all fault lay with the authority granting eligibility certificate providing total exemption in place of concessional rate. Therefore, the assessment proceedings could not be reopened under section 21 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act. 6.. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a decision reported in [1968] 22 STC 269 (Mad.) (Premier Electro-Mechanical Fabricators v. State of Madras) where it has been held that once a declaration is produced before the seller, there is no further obligation on the part of the selling deale ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsel for the State submits that assessing authority should have taken care to see that purchaser-dealer had correct exemption. In case under the law he is entitled only for partial concession the assessing authority should not have given total exemption. In this connection it may be observed that assessing authority is different from the authority granting eligibility certificate under section 4-B of the U.P. Trade Tax Act. In the assessment proceedings the assessing authority has to act in accordance with certificate as may be issued by other departmental authority, to the dealers. Reliance has been placed on behalf of the petitioner, upon a case reported in 1982 UPTC 858 (Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. v. Metal Cans, Noor Market). It has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
