JUDGEMENT
Rajes Kumar, J. -
(1.) These three revisions under Section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") are directed against the order of the Tribunal dated 26th June, 1996 relating to the assessment years, 1984-85, 1985-86 and 1986-87.
(2.) Dealer/opposite party (hereinafter referred as "Dealer") was engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of DROP, DIOP, DBP and DIBP fertilizers which falls under the category of chemical fertilizer. The dealer was holding a recognition certificate under Section 4-B of the Act and purchased raw material against Form III-B and availed the benefit of confessional rate of tax. Assessing authority found that the dealer had dispatched manufactured fertilizers out of State by way of stock transfer to its consignment agents for sale in violation of Section 4-B (2) of the Act and accordingly proceeding under Section 4-b (6) of the Act was initiated. After the consideration of the reply filed by the dealer, penalty was levied under Section 4-B of the Act. Assessing authority levied the penalty under Section 4-B (6) of the Act as it stood during the relevant assessment year. First appeal filed by the dealer for the assessment year, 1984-85 was allowed and the matter was remanded back to the assessing authority. However, appeals filed for the assessment years, 1985-86 and 1986-97 have been dismissed. Dealer filed second appeal before the Tribunal. Tribunal by the impugned order allowed all the three appeals in part. Tribunal has held that the dealer had violated the provision of Section 4-B (6) of the Act and, therefore, levy of penalty under Section 4-B (6) of the Act was justified. Tribunal, however, observed that the penalty notices under Section 4-B (6) of the Act have been issued after 29.07.1987 the date on which Section 4-B (6) of the Act has been amended and, therefore, penalty was leviable in accordance to the amended provision and not under the provision as it existed during the relevant assessment year prior to 29.07.1987. Tribunal, accordingly, modified the quantum of the penalty.
(3.) Heard learned Standing Counsel. No one appears on behalf of the dealer inspite of the service of the notice.;
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.