R.R.Rastogi, J. - (1.) This is Commissioner's revision under Section 11(1) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act (hereinafter "the Act") and the question involved is as to whether a single certificate in form III-C(1) covering more than one transaction is valid in law. The brief facts in this behalf are that the respondent-assessee, a co-operative society, carries on business in foodgrains, gur, maida, fertiliser, etc. In its assessment to sales tax under the Act, in respect of the purchases of gur amounting to Rs. 1,35,345.00 the assessee claimed that it was not liable to tax under Section 3-D(2) because those purchases had already suffered tax and it was not the first purchaser thereof and in support of that contention filed one single certificate in form III-C(1). The assessing authority did not accept the assessee's contention because it was of the opinion that one single certificate covering more than one transaction was not legal and valid and accordingly the entire amount of Rs. 1,35,345.00 was brought to tax under Section 3-D(2) of the Act. That view was confirmed by the appellate authority, but on further revision, the Additional Judge (Revisions) has taken the view that in the absence of any finding that tax had not been deposited in respect of these transactions by the selling dealers, it could not be held that the assessee was the first purchaser of these goods and was liable to tax in respect thereof.
(2.) It has been submitted before me by the learned standing counsel that the view taken by the Additional Judge (Revisions) is erroneous in law. After hearing the counsel for the parties I find that there is considerable substance in this contention. Rule 12-B of the Rules framed under the Act which has been inserted with effect from 4th of March, 1974, by the U. P. Sales Tax (First Amendment) Rules, 1974, provides for exemption from purchase or sales tax under Section 3-D. Clause (a) of Sub-rule (7) says that in respect of the goods notified under Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 3-D a certificate in form III-C(1) shall be issued by the dealer, who makes the first purchase of the goods, to the dealer selling such goods. Thus, in the present case, the assessee being the dealer who sold the disputed goods, in order to support its claim, should have obtained form III-C(1) from the dealer who had made first purchase of the same. Sub-rule (9) says.: No single certificate shall cover more than one bill or cash memo or account of sale or purchase furnished by the selling or purchasing agent to his principal, as the case may be.
(3.) It would be seen, therefore, that under this Sub-rule there should be one certificate in respect of one transaction. One certificate cannot cover more than one transaction. In the present case the certificate furnished by the assessee in form III-C(1) covered more than one transaction. Of course, the assessee should have been given choice to indicate the transaction which he wanted to be covered by the certificate filed by it. The certificate filed by it could not have been rejected in toto.;