- (1.) These two revisions under Section 11 of U.P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as "Act") relates to the assessment years 2000-01 and 01-02. Trade Tax Revision No. 1029 of 2006 relates to the assessment year 2000-01 arising from the order of Tribunal dated 21.07.2006 in appeal No. 108 of 2005 while Trade Tax Revision No. 1030 of 2006 relates to the assessment year 2001-02 arises from the order of the Tribunal dated 21.07.2006 in appeal No. 238 of 2005.
(2.) Applicant was carrying on the business of purchases and sales of chemicals. In Trade Tax Revision No. 1029 of 2006, following questions have been raised: 1. Whether the Tribunal was correct to reject the form 3B amounting to Rs. 19,26,313/- in view of the amendment made in Rule 25B(3) of the Rules, specially when the late filing of form 3B is not attributable to the selling dealer but to the purchasing dealer in view of the decision of Star Paper Mills v. CST 2004 UPTC, 317. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct to reject those form 3B in view of Section 25B(3) of the Rules which were issued by the assessing officer of the selling dealer himself during the assessment year 2003-04. 3. Whether the Tribunal was correct to reject the form 3B amounting to Rs. 2,36,000/- issued by OM Export since instead of 2000 words 2001 was mentioned and explanation was submitted in this regard. 4. Whether the Tribunal was correct to reject the form 3B issued by M/s Sue Point Agra. 5. Whether the Tribunal was correct not to consider that even on the basis of the amendments made in Rule 25B(3) of the Rules, it is the purchasing dealer who is responsible for issuing form 3B in time and for the mistake of the purchasing dealer, selling dealer can not be taxed.
(3.) In Trade Tax Revision No. 1030 of 2006, following questions have been raised: 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances, the Tribunal was correct to reject the Form 3B in view of the amendment made in Rule 25B(3) of the Rules specially when the late filing of Form 3B was not attributable to the selling dealer but to the purchasing dealer 2. Whether the Tribunal was correct to reject Form 3B for the transaction of assessment year 2001-02 after two years in view of the Rule 25B(3) of the Rules which itself was issued by the Trade Tax Department during financial year 2004-05 and as such the applicant can not be liable to pay full tax for late filing of Form 3B 3. Whether the Tribunal Was correct not to consider that even on the basis of the amendment made in Rule 25B(3) of the Rules, it is the purchasing dealer who is responsible for issuing form 3B in time and for the mistake of the purchasing dealer, selling dealer can not be taxed.;