Prakash Krishna, J. - (1.) Whether the appeal filed by the dealer-applicant was maintainable under Section 9 of U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948, in view of Clause (1-B) of Section 9 of the Act, is the question involved in the present case.
(2.) The dispute relates to the assessment year 1986-87 with regard to inter-State sale. The applicant-dealer in the monthly returns admitted the tax liability at the rate of 2 per cent. The disclosed gross turnover is Rs. 23,45,666.02.
(3.) The assessee admitted sale of pressure cookers, spare parts and aluminium utensils and admitted the tax liability at the rate of 4 per cent covered by form C. It could not produce form C in respect of admitted turnover of the aforesaid items for Rs. 94,599.23. The assessing authority imposed tax at the rate of 10 per cent. In the return the applicant admitted the sale of aluminium coil with and without form C at the rate of 2 per cent. The assessing authority imposed tax on sale of aluminium coil covered by form C at the rate of 4 per cent and aluminium coils not covered by form C, tax was imposed at the rate of 10 per cent. Appeal against the aforesaid assessment order dated December 29, 1990 was dismissed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Sales Tax, on the ground that the assessee has failed to comply with the provisions of Sub-section (1-B)(a) of Section 9 of the Act. It was also held by the assessing authority as well as by first appellate authority that Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Aluminium [1981] 48 STC 411 ; 1981 UPTC 1249 has held that aluminium coils is taxable as an unclassified item. The Tribunal confirmed the said order in appeal. Hence present revision at the instance of the applicant.;