9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 172X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ually made purchases of oil seeds from registered dealers or the fact that there was a promise on part of the selling dealers to issue Form III-C(2) would be of no avail, insofar as the revenue authorities are concerned. If the applicantassessee claims such rights, as have been canvassed in the present revision application, it would have been for it to have approached a civil court for a proper remedy only against the selling dealer. Revision dismissed. - Sales/Trade Tax Revision No. - 2324 of 2007 - - - Dated:- 31-7-2019 - Saumitra Dayal Singh, J. For the Revisionist : N.R. Kumar,Vishwjeet For the Opposite Party : S.C. ORDER SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH, J. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... there is no dispute to the fact that those dealers were registered under the Act. In such fact, no liability of tax could ever be fixed on the assessee as it did not make the first purchase of the goods namely, oil seeds, inside the State of U.P. 5. In such factual matrix, though the assessee had deposited the tax imposed on purchase of oil seeds, it resists liability to pay interest thereon, by treating the same to be the admitted tax liability on the reasoning that the purchase made by it were exempt but that they came to be taxed only because of the inaction on part of the selling dealer, who did not issue the necessary Form III-C(2) to the assessee. 6. Reliance has been placed on the decision of the learned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... PTC 130) . That decision came to be followed with approval in later decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of The Comissioner Trade Tax, U.P., Lucknow Vs. S/s Control Switch Gears Ltd., Sector-2, NOIDA, (2010 UPTC 1073) . In that decision, the Division Bench examined the entire spectrum of the decisions on the points and, thereafter, concluded as below: Applying the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid cases and by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of M/s. Annapurna Biscuit Co. (Supra), we are of the considered opinion that in a case where concession/exemption is claimed which is dependant upon furnishing of prescribed declaration form and a dealer fails to furnish the declar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8(1) of the Act would be leviable from the due date of the return in which turnover was disclosed and exemption/concession has been claimed and tax at the normal rate has not been paid. The provisions of Section 8(1-B) of the Act would not be applicable. 2. Non-furnishing of requisite form by the time of assessment proceedings or in appellate proceedings, the tax assessed at the normal rate would be treated as the tax admittedly payable under Section 8(1) of the Act. 3. There is no scope for consideration of legitimate expectation or hope or bona fide plea under Section 8(1) of the Act and the stage of determination of liability of tax for the purposes of Section 8(1) would be the date for filing the retur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
