9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (9) TMI 582X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with effect from October 30, 2001. Prior to this date, the dealer was not registered for the spring leaves (motor parts). Thus, knowing that it was not registered for spring leaves (motor parts) it had issued form C in respect thereof which amounts to violation of clause (b) of section 10 of the Act. In the facts and circumstances of the case, no interference is called for in the order of the Tribunal. - - - - - Dated:- 17-9-2007 - RAJES KUMAR , J. RAJES KUMAR J. The present revision under section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) is directed against the order dated June 13, 2007 for the assessment year 1999-2000 under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d issued form C while making the purchases, though it was not registered under the Central Sales Tax Act in respect of spring leave (motor parts) and accordingly on the value of Rs. 3,49,443 penalty at Rs. 52,416 was levied. Being aggrieved by the order, the applicant filed appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) Trade Tax, Agra. The Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) Trade Tax, Agra vide order dated August 19, 2002 had dismissed the appeal. Before the appellate authority also the applicant had made the same plea which was taken before the assessing authority. Being aggrieved by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), the applicant filed second appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by the impugned order rejected the appeal. Heard ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing authority or the appellate authority the applicant had not pleaded that he purchased separate spring leaves and not the spring leaves in a consolidated form as motor parts and therefore the factual plea raised by the applicant cannot be accepted at this stage. He submitted that the only plea taken by the applicant was that he had moved the application on January 18, 2000 for the addition of spring leaves in the registration certificate by UPC which was not accepted by the assessing authority. He submitted that the Tribunal had held that the applicant's place of business was very near to the Trade Tax Office and there was no reason why the application dated January 18, 2000 could not be filed in the office while the returns and other ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been accepted by all the authorities. Admittedly, in the registration certificate, spring leaves was added with effect from October 30, 2001. Prior to this date, the dealer was not registered for the spring leaves (motor parts). Thus, knowing that it was not registered for spring leaves (motor parts) it had issued form C in respect thereof which amounts to violation of clause (b) of section 10 of the Act. In the case of State of Maharashtra v. Rashid reported in 2006 AIR SCW 162 the apex court held that the certificate of posting has little assistance because post office does not keep any record and it is being misused. In the facts and circumstances of the case, no interference is called for in the order of the Tribunal. In the resul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
