9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (3) TMI 699X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) is directed against the order of the Tribunal dated July 28, 1999 relating to the assessment year 1993-94 under the U.P. Trade Tax Act. Dealer/opposite party (hereinafter referred to as "the dealer") purchased rice bran as a commission agent for and on behalf of the principal against form IIIB. On the basis of the aforesaid form IIIB dealer claimed the benefit of concessional rate of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ourt held that since the rice bran was not a declared commodity, the provisions of section 4B(1)(a1) of the Act does not apply. Decision of the learned single judge in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Shri Mahalaxmi Industries [1980] UPTC 679 has been considered by the Division Bench of this court in the case of Agarwala Brothers v. Commissioner of Sales Tax reported in [1990] UPTC 76. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... B(1)(a1) of the Act read as follows: "Section 4B. Special relief to certain manufacturers.--(1). . . (a1) Where any declared goods liable to tax under sub-section (1) of section 3D are sold or supplied by a dealer, who is the first purchaser thereof, to another dealer, holding a valid recognition certificate issued under sub-section (2) in respect thereof, the dealer who made the first purch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er section 4B(2) of the Act. In this view of the matter, the order of the Tribunal is erroneous and is liable to be set aside.
In the result, revision is allowed. Order of the Tribunal is set aside granting the benefit of the concessional rate of tax on the purchases of rice bran of Rs. 12,88,647.95. The Tribunal is directed to pass appropriate orders under section 11(8) of the Act. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
