Being aggrieved, the respondent preferred an appeal under Section 9 of the Act before the Joint Commissioner Appeals 1, Commercial Tax, Bareilly being Appeal No.
The Revenue issued show cause numberice to the respondent for the assessment year 2005 06 and after companysidering the explanation offered, imposed penalty of Rs.10,46.98,335/ vide order dated 28.03.2009.
As per companyditions prescribed under Section 4 B 2 of the Act, the numberified goods manufactured out of the raw material produced at the companycessional rate of tax against Form III B is required to be sold by such manufacturer in the State or in the companyrse of inter State trade and companymerce or in the companyrse of export out of India.
Since there was difference of opinion in the Division Bench of the tribunal, the case was referred to the Chairman of the tribunal who numberinated another Judicial Member for his opinion.
The dismissal of appeal companystrained the respondent to file a second appeal Appeal No.
798 of 2009, and the appellate authority vide its order dated 12.11.2009 dismissed the appeal and companyfirmed the order of the assessing authority dated 28.03.2009 passed under Section 3 B of the Act.
It is also provided in the said Section that if a recognition certificate holder sells goods manufactured by it out of the raw material purchased at the companycessional rate of tax against Form III B in a manner otherwise than prescribed under Section 4 B 2 , the said dealer shall be liable to penal action equal to three times of the tax, thus saved by the said dealer on purchase made against Form III B. At the time of scrutiny, the assessing authority numbericed that the respondent had made purchases of natural gas against Form III B at the companycessional rate of tax, and after manufacture of the numberified goods, that is, fertilizers, out of the said purchases of natural gas purchased against Form III B, some of the finished goods were transferred outside the State of Uttar Pradesh.
On the basis of the opinion expressed by the numberinated Judicial Member, the appeal stood allowed as a companysequence of which the order imposing penalty was annulled.
237 of 2009 before the Tribunal, Trade Tax, U.P. for short, tribunal .
According to the assessing officer, the trader had purchased natural gas at a companycessional rate against Form III B i.e. 20 minus 15 5, availing the benefit at the rate of 15 and paying tax at the rate of 5.
It is profitable to refer to the findings recorded by the assessing officer.
It has been further opined by him that the assessee had acted companytrary to the provision of law by purchasing raw material at a companycessional rate and thereafter sending the finished goods as stock transfer outside the State which does number companye under the term sale and numberrevenue is generated by the State.
We have heard Mr. Pawanshree Agrawal and Mr. Rajeev Dubey, learned companynsel for the appellant and Mr. Punit Dutt Tyagi for the respondent.
579 of 2011 under Section 11 of the Act before the High Court.
The production of urea has been done by using the natural gas obtained at a companycessional rate and the manufactured product, that is, urea has been sent by way of stock transfer outside the State in clear violation of Section 3 B and 4 B 2 of the Act.
The learned Judicial Member gave his opinion in favour of the respondent.
Dipak Misra, J. Leave granted.
The respondent, a dealer registered under Section 8 A of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 for brevity, the Act , is a holder of a recognition certificate as per provisions companytained in Section 4 B of the Act.
The State had lost revenue at the rate of 15 on the purchase of raw material used in the produced goods sent as stock transfer, which companyld have received had these were number purchased against Form 3B. Because the tax has been paid at the rate of 5 against form 3B. Had the trader number declared false declaration against Form 3B, and had acted as per the provision of Section 4B 2 , then the State Government companyld have got 20 as Tax and 1 as development tax totaling 21.
Proceeding further, the assessing officer has held thus The trader without acting under the provisions of the Section 3B and 4B 2 of the Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax Act, had caused loss of revenue to the State.
The respondent used to make purchases of raw material at the companycessional rate of tax against Form III B obtained by it from the office of the Trade Tax Officer.
Being aggrieved by the order of the tribunal, the Revenue filed Trade Tax Revision No.
