TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 134X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the year 2010. In case issuance of Form-III C (2) in the year 2010 is treated valid for the financial year 2010, then the very purpose and object of issuing registration and Form-III C (2) would be frustrated. Form-III C (2) as well as Rule 12-B(4) would have to be read harmoniously. The blank form issued after dealer's registration in 2010 for the period 23.12.2006 to 31.12.2007 would relate back to the financial year during which the registration itself existed and not on the date of its actual issue. Such interpretation would be reasonable as the selling dealer otherwise had no registration existing in the year 2010 and no form could be issued. In such circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that once Form-III C (2) has been issued b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y issued by the selling dealer to the revisionist in 2010. It appears that in the absence of Form-III C (2) orders of assessment against the revisionist were passed, holding it liable to payment of Tax as the first purchaser. An appeal was pending, wherein such Form-III C(2) was filed as additional evidence. Benefit of such additional evidence has been denied to the assessee relying upon Rule 12-B (4) of the Rules of 1948, which reads as under:- Rule 12-B(4). If the Trade Tax Officer is satisfied that the requisition of the dealer for blank forms referred to in sub-rule(1) is genuine and reasonable, he may issue the same in such number as he deems fit. If the fee paid is more than the fee payable for the number of forms issued, the bal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er only if a valid Form-III C (2) is not issued by the selling dealer. It is contended that on account of dispute pending, the selling dealer could not issue Form-III C (2) earlier and it was only in the year 2010 that the selling dealer got registered. The order dated 15.6.2010 allowed selling dealer to issue Form-III C (2) for the period 23.12.2006 to 31.12.2007. It is also submitted that form issued in the year 2010 would have to be treated as a form issued for the relevant period 26.12.2006 to 31.3.2007 and the provisions of Rule 12-B (4) cannot be relied upon to deny its benefit. 5. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand submits that Form- III C (2) was issued in the year 2010 and would not be valid for the present purposes in v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
