Prakash Krishna, J. - (1.) This case has a checkered history. Assessment year 1965-66 is involved in the present revision. The revision is directed against the order dated 23-5-1995 passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal Kanpur in Second appeal No. 438 of 1983.
(2.) The applicant had purchased oil seed from the registered dealer situate in the State of U.P. and all purchases were made from registered dealer. It produced the list of entire purchases giving the name, address and registration number of the selling dealer. It appears that successive assessment orders were passed on account of remand order passed by the higher authority. Ultimately last remand order was passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) in Appeal No. 76 of 1978 decided on 19-6-1981 with certain direction. The crux of the direction given by the Dy. Commissioner (Appeals) was that the claim of exemption set up by the applicant on the ground that the oil seeds were purchased from the registered dealer, should be examined afresh after examining the files of the selling dealer. The oil seed was taxable at the time of first purchase under Section 3-D of U.P. Trade Tax Act in the relevant assessment year. The assessing authority after remand has noted the direction given by the first appellate authority in its order. According to the applicant it has made purchases from 20 registered dealers and their name, addresses and the amount of purchase are mentioned in the assessment order. The assessing authority finding that out of 20 dealers, the files of only seven selling dealers could be available. The remaining files were either lost or were weeded out and in absence of the files, no further inquiry was possible. Ultimately, the assessing authority again levied purchase tax on the purchase of oil- seeds treating the applicant as first purchaser. He partly accepted the claim of the dealer in respect of Rs. 8094.87, Rs. 7609.60 and Rs. 10212.24 out of the total claim of Rs. 1080925.44. The said order was confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner (appeals) as well as by the Trade Tax Tribunal.
(3.) Heard Sri M.M. Rai, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri B.K. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the department. Learned counsel for the applicant pointed out that the Tribunal was not correct in treating the applicant as the first purchaser of the oil-seeds. The Tribunal has wrongly rejected the claim on the ground that the applicant has neither produced any prescribed form against the alleged purchases nor has proved beyond doubt that the alleged purchases have been made from the registered dealer. In contra the learned Standing counsel supported the order of the Tribunal.;