9911796707
TMI Blog1993 (11) TMI 247X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ereby it allowed the dealer's Second Appeal and quashed the levy of interest under Section 8 (1) of U. P. Sales Tax Act for the assessment year 1979 - 80. 2. I have heard the learned Standing Counsel and the Counsel for the dealer - respondent. 3. In this case, the respondent is a dealer in foodgrains and so purchase tax under Section 3 - D was leviable on the first purchases ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not first purchases liable to tax under Section 3 - D and they were taxed only because registered dealer from whom the dealer respondent had made the said purchases failed to issue Form 3 - C (2), although at the time of purchases they had assured to issue the said forms. The Tribunal had also noticed that in the immediately preceding year this Court had held that since the purchases were made fro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... him in any return or proceedings under this Act, whichever is greater, or if no accounts were maintained, then according to the estimate of the dealer (and includes the amount payable under Section 3 - B). As the order of Tribunal shows the turnover in question was not shown as a taxable turnover in the accounts maintained by the dealer nor was it so admitted in the returns filed by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urther as mentioned earlier this Court in the present dealer's case for the immediately preceding year had held that the purchases made from registered dealer were not liable to purchase tax under Section 3 - D. In my opinion, the Tribunal was right in holding that no interest under Section 8 (1) could be levied on the dealer respondent. The revision petition, therefore, has no force and is he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
