- (1.) THE petitioner is a publisher and is engaged in the printing and sale of books prescribed by the State Government for Class I to VIII. An agreement has been executed between the State Government and the petitioner for publication, supply and sale of books. The agreement indicates that the State Government is the owner of the books and that the petitioner would be responsible for publishing and selling the books on which the petitioner would pay a royalty to the State Government. The agreement further indicates that if the books are sold to the State Government or to its departments, the petitioner would sell them at a discounted rate. Based on this agreement, the petitioner has received various purchase orders from various District Basic Siksha Adhikari and, in pursuance thereto, has been supplying the books and have received the price of the books from these authorities.
(2.) FOR the purpose of selling the books, the petitioner was required to print these books for which purpose the petitioner has purchased ink and chemicals from outside the State. For the assessment year 2003 -04 and 2004 -05, the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Agra, respondent no.3, after considering the matter in detail, passed an assessment order granting exemption from payment of trade tax on the sale of books made by the petitioner in view of the Notification No.TT -2 -63/XI -9(116)/94 -U.P. Act -15/48 -Order -95 dated 16th January, 1995 whereby sale of books was exempted from payment of trade tax.
(3.) SUBSEQUENTLY , respondent no.2, namely, the Additional Commissioner, Grade -I, Commercial Tax, Agra issued a notice under Section 21(2) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the assessment year 2003 -04 and 2004 -05 directing the petitioner to show cause as to why reassessment should not be made on the ground that on inquiry it was found that the petitioner had purchased ink from outside the State of Uttar Pradesh amounting to Rs.6,23,096/ - for the purpose of publication of the books and, therefore, such purchase of ink was used for the purpose of execution of a works contract, which was liable to tax under Section 3F of the Act. The petitioner submitted his reply to the notice specifically contending that he is not involved in the execution of any works contract but is involved only in the publishing and sale of books for which purpose ink was purchased as a raw material. Inspite of giving a specific reply, respondent no.2 passed an order dated 7th March, 2008 authorizing the Assessing Officer to make reassessment for the assessment year 2003 -04 and 2004 -05. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the order dated 7th March, 2008 filed Writ Petition No.1222 of 2009, which was allowed in part by judgment dated 8th May, 2009. The writ Court held that the Additional Commissioner had neither given any reasons nor dealt with the objections raised by the petitioner and, consequently, in view of the decision laid down in case of M/s S.K. Traders Vs. Additional Commissioner, Ghaziabad, 2008 UPTC 392, the order of the Additional Commissioner cannot be sustained and was quashed. The writ Court directed the Additional Commissioner to pass a fresh order after considering the reply briefly stating the reasons as to why permission should be granted for reassessment. Pursuant to the said decision, respondent no.2 again issued a notice. The petitioner in response to the said notice filed a detailed reply and reiterated that he was only involved in the publication and sale of books and ink imported by him was used in the printing of the books published by him and that he was not involved in any works contract. Respondent no.2 by an order dated 4th August, 2009 again passed an order of authorization directing the Assessing Officer to make the reassessment under Section 21 of the Act. The reasons recorded by him is, that the petitioner has concealed material fact inasmuch as, for the publication of the books, the petitioner has entered into an agreement dated 19th April, 2003, which contains 31 conditions and, therefore, such publication of books is in pursuance of a works contract. The petitioner, being aggrieved by said order, has filed the present writ petition praying for the quashing order of authorization dated 4th August, 2009 passed by respondent no.2 for the assessment year 2003 -04 and 2004 -05 and the consequential notice dated 11th February, 2010 issued by the Assessing Officer.;