RAJES KUMAR, J. - (1.) This is a revision filed by the Commissioner of Sales Tax under Section 11 of the U. P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against the order of Tribunal dated April 12,1991 relating to the assessment year 1972 -73.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the dealer -opposite party, was a Government Company and was engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of rosin turpentine oil. During the year under consideration, the dealer had sold turpentine oil for Rs. 28,71,232 to M/s. Campher and Allied Products, Bareilly and claimed the rebate on such sale under Section 5 read with Rule 27 -D. The dealer duly filed declaration in forms VII -G and VII -H before the assessing authority as required under Rule 27 -D (3) after receiving them from the purchasing dealer, M/s. Campher and Allied Products. The assessing authority has disallowed the claim of rebate on the ground that M/s. Campher and Allied Products had shown the stock transfer of the finished goods manufactured out of the rosin turpentine oil and therefore, condition of the rebate as contemplated under Rule 27 -D was not fulfilled. Dealer filed the appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Sales Tax, Bareilly and Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), allowed the claim of rebate. Commissioner of Sales Tax filed the appeal before Tribunal which was rejected. Being aggrieved by the order of Tribunal, the present revision has been filed. I have heard Sri M. R. Jaiswal, learned Standing Counsel and Sri Bharat Ji Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the dealer.
(3.) LEARNED Standing Counsel contended that under Rule 27 -D rebate was eligible in case the finished product manufactured out of oil was sold inside the State of U. P. or in the course of export outside the territory of India and the rebate was not eligible in case the finished goods was stock transferred to the depot or to consignment agent outside the State of U. P. and in the present case it was found that M/s. Campher and Allied Products Ltd., to whom turpentine oil was sold, despatched the finished goods by way of stock transfer and hence the rebate was not eligible under Rule 27 -D. The Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal had allowed the rebate on the ground that the Rule 27 -D contemplated the filing of forms VII -G and VII -H after obtaining form from the purchasing party and the dealer had filed the said forms before assessing authority in which no defect was found and hence the rebate was eligible. Learned Counsel for the dealer submitted that under Rule 27 -D (3) for the claim of the rebate, the selling dealer was required to file declaration in form VII -G and form VII -H which was to be obtained from the purchasing dealer to whom the oils were consumed, duly verified by the Sales Tax Officer in whose jurisdiction industrial premises of such dealer was situated. In the present case, the dealer -opposite party had filed such forms in which no defect was found. He submitted that once the requisite declaration forms were filed the rebate was eligible notwithstanding that it is found that the dealer who had issued the form had not complied with the requirement of Rule 27 -D. He submitted that it was not the obligatory on the part of the applicant to make further enquiry or verification about the activity of the purchasing dealer. In case the purchasing dealer had made the wrong declaration or disposed of the finished goods otherwise than in the manner prescribed in the rule then in such situation, the selling dealer cannot be held responsible and necessary action can be taken against the purchasing dealer. In support of its contention, he relied upon the Supreme Court judgment in the case of State of Madras v. Radio and Electricals Ltd. reported in [1966] 18 STC 222, the decision of this Court in the case of Bharat Iron Stores v. Commissioner of Sales Tax reported in [1994] UPTC 130, Indra Steels Private Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax reported in [1995] UPTC 4 and Gaurav Traders v. C.S.T. reported in [1996] NTN 262.;