9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 949X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... '. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a registered dealer under the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The petitioner has been dealing in the purchase of food grains for the State of U.P. towards its contribution to the national pool and the same was supplied to the Food Corporation of India towards the national pool. The issue in question is related to the assessment for the year 1977-78 which was completed vide order dated 26.2.1985 on the turnover of Rs. 61,26,39,561.78. The Assessing Authority has disallowed certain exemptions. The petitioner, therefore, preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Authority assailing the order of disallowing those exemptions. The First Appellate Authority partly allowed the appeal and reduced the tax liability. The petitioner feeling aggrieved with the aforesaid order filed second appeal before the Sales Tax Tribunal under section 10 of the Act and the Tribunal vide its order dated 31.3.1994 partly allowed the appeal of the petitioner. The Tribunal has confirmed the imposition of purchase tax on the wheat worth Rs. 54,87,61,701.52 only on the ground that Form-III-C-1 has not been filed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... adesh by a dealer, either directly or through another, whether on his own account of on account of any one else, shall, for the purposes of sub-section 92), be deemed to be sale to a person to a person other than a registered dealer, unless dealer selling the goods proves otherwise, to the satisfaction of the assessing authority after having furnished such declaration or certificate, obtained from the purchaser of such goods, in such form and manner and with such period, as may be prescribed." 4. In absence of Form III-C, Revenue has right to levy tax upon revisionist. Hence, I answer this question, against Assessee. 5. Revision stands dismissed. Order Date :- 13.7.2017' Therefore, the issue regarding requirement of form-III-C-1 has been decided by this cour tvide order dated 13.7.2017 (supra) passed in Trade Tax Revision No. 67 of 1994 against the petitioner, even after considering the factual and legal submissions of the petitioner. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner here in this writ petition is that the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in Re: Food Corporation of India vs. C.S.T. reported in 1987, U.P. Tax Cases, 1258 has held that liabi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e U.P. Sales Tax Act, it must be answered against the assesse following our answer to proposition No. 1 and in favour of the Revenue. We have held that the transactions in question are all sale and exigible to tax under the State Sales Tax Act. The contention that the Explanation newly added was ultra vires Entry No. 54, List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution on the assumption that the disputed transactions are not sales, and, therefore, by a fiction the impugned Explanation cannot deem a sale which is not a sale, is without substance. The learned counsel fairly concedes that it is open to the State Legislature to shape a point at which tax is levied, it may be equally permissible to the Legislature to treat a part6icular sale or purchase as the first sale or purchase, but it cannot be legislative device of fiction of law make something as a sale purchase which in fact is not. This argument has to fail in view of our answer to proposition No. 1 in favour of the Revenue. We, therefore, do not find any substance in the proposition No. 2 advanced by he learned Senior Counsel for the appellants." A perusal of para 31 of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in re: Food C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e liable to pay tax on the purchase tax made by the Food Corporation of India. We have carefully perused the relevant material enclosed with the writ petition viz-a-viz the order of Hon'ble Apex Court. The aforesdaid submission of the petitioner is not acceptable in the light of para 31 of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court passed in re: Food Corporation of India vs. State of Kerla (supra). The petitioner is aggrieved by the demand notice dated 11.9.2017 which appears to have been issued after the order dated 13.7.2017 having been passed by this Court while finally deciding the trade tax revision of the petitioner bearing Trade Tax Revision No. 67 of 1994: M/S. U.P. Cooperative Federation Ltd. Lucknow vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. Lucknow. By means of supplementary affidavit filed on 5.10.2017 the petitioner has enclosed attachment order issued by the opposite party no. 3 addressed to the Punjab National Bank, P.C.F. Building, 32 Station Road, Lucknow for attaching the Bank account of the petitioner with regard to the dues amounting to Rs. 2,09,98,112 pertaining to the Assessment Year 1977-78. The petitioner has also enclosed the order dated 3.10.2017 issued by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... judicial principles, this Court would not interfere in appeal with the order made by the High Court in this respect.". 28. In Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India, a nine-Judge Bench of this Court while considering the Excise Act and Customs Act held that the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 and this Court under Article 32 though cannot be circumscribed by the provisions of the aid enactments, they will certainly have due regard to the legislative intent evidenced by the provisions of the said Acts and would exercise their jurisdiction consistent with the provisions of the Act. This Court held : (SCC pp. 631-32, para 108) "108. The discussion in the judgment yields the following propositions. We may forewarn that theswe propositions are set out merely for the sale of convenient reference and are not supposed to be exhaustive. In case of any doubt or ambiguity in these propositions, reference must be had to the discussion and propositions in the body of the judgment. (i)....While the jurisdiction of the High Courts under Article 226-and of this Court under Article 32 -cannot be circumscribed by the provisions of the said enactments, they will certainly h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
