9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (11) TMI 436X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -B(3) of the U.P. Trade Tax Rules - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, the assessment years pertain to 2003-04 2005-06. In view of the amendment in rule 25-B(3) of the U.P. Trade Tax Rules, the benefit was only extended for submission of form within two years of transaction. In the case in hand, forms were submitted after the prescribed period mentioned in the said Rules. The only stand taken by the revisionist is that its books of account were under the custody of CBI and was only handed over on 17.08.2007. Therefore, the revisionist could not comply with the said provision. On close scrutiny of the said submission, this Court, with due respect, finds that the judgement of the Single Judge in M/S NARBADA INDUSTRIES VERSUS C.C.T [ 2017 (4) TMI 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cond Appeal No. 127 of 2010 for the assessment year 2003-04. The present revision has been filed raising following, amongst other, questions of law:- A) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the the assessing authority as well as the appellate authorities are legally justified in law in not accepting the forms 3-B furnished before the assessing authority against the claim of concessional rate of tax on the ground that the said forms 3-B cannot be accepted as the same are filed after the period as indicated under Rule 25- B(3) of the U.P. Trade Tax Rules? B) Whether the authorities below as well as the Tribunal correct in law in not considering the fact namely that the entire documents including the record of trade tax have b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e same were submitted for its acceptance before the authority, but the same have wrongly been disbelieved, which has been confirmed by the Tribunal. He further relied upon the judgement of this Court in M/s Narbada Industries Vs. CCT reported in 2017 UPTC 491 and prays for setting aside the order of the lower authorities and acceptance of form III-B. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel submits that the Tribunal as well as the authorities below have rightly not accepted the contention of the revisionist as the issue has been settled by this Court in M/s K.B. Hides Vs. State of U.P. Others reported in 2004 UPTC 292. Hence, the authorities below were justified in not granting benefit of the same. The Court has perused the reco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in M/s Oriental Carbon (supra), the benefit of extending the period beyond two years is not permissible. It is not in dispute, rather it is accepted by the revisionist, that Form III-B were filed beyond the period of two years and therefore, in terms of Rule 25 - B (3) of the Rules, which specifically puts bar, the benefit cannot be extended. In view of the aforesaid provisions and the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in M/s Oriental Carbon (supra), M/s Coco Form Industries (supra) and M/s K.B. Hides (supra); wherein, validity of the provisions of Rule - B(3) was upheld as well as the benefit of form cannot be extended beyond two years of the transaction, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
