1997 (4) TMI 491

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Act are directed against a common order dated February 13, 1995 whereby dealer's second appeal has been allowed and it has been held that the dealer is liable to pay concessional rate of tax in respect of sales made to the U.P. State Sugar Corporation against the declaration in form III-D. 2.. I have heard Sri U.K. Pande, learned counsel for the Commissioner. 3.. Under section 3-G, a concession .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... goods, i.e., sugar mill machinery to the U.P. State Sugar Corporation, which admittedly issued declaration in form III-D to avail the concessional rate of tax. The assessing officer of the dealer took the view that the U.P. State Sugar Corporation is manufacturer of sugar and used the machinery for the manufacture of sugar; and, therefore, the sale to it was not liable to concessional rate of ta .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... dealer was not liable to pay the difference under section 3-G of the Act. In those cases, U.P. State Sugar Corporation had come to this Court against the orders under section 3-D. 7. In the present case, however, the tax was levied on selling dealer who is now respondent. That, however, makes no difference in law. The purchasing dealer, i.e., U.P. State Sugar Corporation having furnished the req .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X