Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2021 (11) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (11) TMI 436 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxConcessional rate of tax - acceptance of forms 3-B furnished before the assessing authority - 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 - entire documents including the record of trade tax have been seized by the CBI, New Delhi at the time of their raid conducted on 24.12.2005 and the same are returned to the revisionist only on 17.08.2007 - non-exclusion of period of seizure of documents by the CBI, New Delhi for the purposes of calculation of the period for submission of forms as provided under Rule 25-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 134 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] is per incurium as the Division Bench of this Court, in the case of M/S. ORIENTAL CARBON & CHEMICALS LTD. VERSUS STATE OF UP. & ANOTHER [2010 (12) TMI 1075 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT], on an identical set of fact, has held that the period of limitation prescribed in Rule 25 cannot be extended. In view of the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in M/s Oriental Carbon, 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, the Tribunal has rightly refused to grant the benefit of exemption to the assessee - revisionist. Both the revisions fail and are hereby dismissed.
|