R.K.Agrawal, J. - (1.) Disagreeing and also doubting the correctness of the law laid down by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of M/s Jaya Bhatta Udyog v. State of U.P. (Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.858 of 1990, decided on 17.7.1990), followed subsequently by two Division Benches in the case of M/s Sri Durga Brick Field v. State of U.P., 1991 UPTC 510, and Jai Sharma Int Udyog v. Deputy Collector (Collection), Sales Tax, (1999) 116 STC 357, wherein this Court has held that once a person elects to pay the sales tax in lump sum under the scheme announced under Section 7-D of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), he could not be permitted to turn around and contend that he was not liable to pay the amount, agreed to be paid by him, because his turnover turned out to be either nil or that it was not adequate on account of various factors, a Division Bench had referred the matter to be considered by a larger Bench of this Court. The Full Bench has, therefore, been constituted to reconsider the correctness of the aforesaid judgments rendered by the Division Bench.
(2.) While referring the matter for reconsideration by the larger Bench, the Division Bench has expressed its disagreement in the following words :- "We have carefully perused the above decisions and we are in respectful disagreement with the same. In the aforesaid decisions it has been held that once the petitioner has opted for composition scheme he has to pay Trade Tax even if he has not made any sales. In our opinion sales tax (now known as Trade Tax) is payable when there is a sale. When there is no sale we cannot understand how sales tax (Trade Tax) can be charged.
(3.) It may be mentioned that Section 7-D mentions that "assessing authority may agree to accept the composition money either in lump sum or at an agreed rate on the dealers turnover in lieu of tax that may be payable by a dealer in respect of such goods or class of goods.";