RAJES KUMAR, J. - (1.) THESE three revisions under Section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') are directed against the order of the Tribunal dated May 12, 1998 relating to the assessment years 1990 -91, 1991 -92 and 1992 -93, all under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. In all the three revisions, following common questions have been raised: 1. Whether in view of the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in the case of India Carbon Ltd. v. State of Assam reported in [1997] 106 STC 460 : [1998] UPTC 1 dated July 16, 1997, no interest can be charged under the Central Sales Tax Act on Central sales? 2. Whether in view of the Notification No. 7038 dated January 31, 1985, the applicant was not liable for payment of tax in respect of bone meal and bone meal powder which was sold by the applicant? 3. Whether the description of the goods sold having been mentioned in the bills and invoices which was purchased and consumed by Kerala Chemicals and Proteins Ltd., which was consumed also by the said purchaser, the Tribunal was not justified in treating the sale of bone meal as crushed bone on the basis of the subsequent letter dated May 14, 1994 after the consumption of the goods?
(2.) WHETHER even assuming without admitting that what was sold by the applicant was crushed bone liable to tax, the Tribunal ought to have given opportunity to the applicant to furnish 'C form in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer [1985] 60 STC 301 at pages 307 and 308? Brief facts of the case are that the applicant established a new unit in the year 1988 for the manufacturing of bone meal, etc. The eligibility certificate was issued under Section 4A of the Act for the period of six years from January 5, 1985. The period of six years expired on January 4, 1991. Therefore with effect from January 5, 1991 applicant was liable for tax on its manufactured product. During the years under consideration, admittedly applicant had sold the goods to M/s. Kerala Chemicals and Proteins Limited, which is claimed to be bone meal and the exemption has been claimed as fertilizers. There is no dispute about the turnover. The assessing authority held that in fact the applicant had sold crushed bone and not bone meal. For arriving to the aforesaid conclusion, assessing authority held that at the time of survey dated September 2, 1992 stock of crushed bone was found. In reply to a letter M/s. Kerala Chemicals and Proteins Limited wrote a letter No. 31/300/787 dated May 14, 1994 in which it has been confirmed that during the years under consideration they have purchased 3/8', 5/8' size of bone from the applicant. Copies of the purchase order against which the supply was made have also been sent in which the order was for the supply of 3/8', 5/8' size of bone. On the basis of these material it has been held that the applicant had in fact sold crushed bone and not bone meal and accordingly, levied the tax on the turnover. The plea of the applicant has not been accepted in first appeal and also by the Tribunal on the basis of statement of Abdul Habib at the time of survey dated September 2, 1992; the stock of crushed bone found at the time of survey and the letter dated May 14, 1994 written by M/s. Kerala Chemicals and Proteins Limited. It has been held by the Tribunal that the supply was of crushed bone and not bone meal. The Tribunal further held that the letter dated May 14, 1994 written by M/s. Kerala Chemicals and Proteins Limited was confronted to the applicant but no explanation was given.
(3.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties.;