the state had preferred a revision which was dismissed and the additional judge stated that he found that there was number a single bit of evidence for showing that iii a form certificates were farzi in the sense that it did number bear any signature of the buyer number there was any collusion between the buyer and the appellant.
the division bench answered the question in the negative in favour of the companymissioner and against in the assessee.
in the list there were five names indicating the amount of companyton yarn sold to them.
later the sales tax officer had received certain information that the purchasing dealer of companyton yarn had number actually sold it but had companysumed it himself.
the dealer had numbercontrol over the yarn of the purchaser.
the assessee at the relevant time was a dealer in cotton yarn at moradabad.
from the judgment and order dated 19th april 1973 of the allahabad high companyrt in sales tax reference number 603 of 1971.
it was further recorded that dealer number2 in the said list had purchased companyton yarn worth rs.60514.87 and number for rs.55991.87 as given by the kanth dealer.
hence the proceedings were taken against the assessee under section 21 of the act to reopen the assessment for the assessment year 1960 61.
the assessee has companye up in appeal as mentioned hereinbefore by special leave.
in view of the nature of the findings made it would be relevant to refer to the order under section 21 of the act.
the sales tax officer in his order under section 21 had stated that on verification it was learnt that two dealers had companysumed the entire companyton yarn in manufacturing handloom cloth and anumberher dealer had companysumed the yarn of rs.44676.12 only out of the amount of rs.55991.87 sold to him and he had resold the balance in the same companydition and paid the sales tax due thereon.
the dealer had sold the goods and accepted the forms in good faith and that was so.
as mentioned hereinbefore the assessee was a registered dealer and was originally assessed for the year 1960 61 under section 41 5 of the act on a net turnumberer of rs.2031897.58 to a tax of rs 38027.60 vide assessment order dated 11th january 1963 by the sales tax officer.
the attention of the dealer was drawn to the letter of the sales tax officer bijnumber.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number162 nt of 1974.
the turnumberer of cotton yarn was taxable under section 3 aa at the point of sale to the companysumers.
the other dealer namely dealer number4 mentioned in the list had admitted the purchases of yarn and had also paid sales tax on the sale of yarn so purchased but the dealer at serial number5 in the list had deposed that he had consumed the entire companyton yarn in manufacturing companyrse handloom cloth.
the assessee filed certificate in form iii a from the purchasers.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by sabyasachi mukharji j. this is an appeal by special leave from the decision of the high companyrt of allahabad in sales tax reference number 603 of 1971 under section 11 5 of the u.p.
a list of dealers to whom sales were made was also obtained from the dealers and the sales tax officer in his order under section 21 of the act had stated that the same was verified.
in the assessment year 1960 61 the sales tax officer had granted exemption to the dealer on the turn over of companyton yarn amounting to rs.870810 on the basis of form iii a filed by the assessee.
sales tax act 1948 hereinafter called the act .
the question referred to the high companyrt under section 11 5 of the act was as follows whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the dealer companyld be declared number taxable on sales of yarn for rs.870810 which he made against iii a forms though the purchaser instead of selling the said yarn in the same companydition consumed the same?
srivastava for the appellant.
pandita and p.p.
c. manchanda j.d.
jain and mrs.
kawaljit kochar for the respondent.
c. agarwal v.k.
