Anshuman Singh, J. - (1.) The assessee is a dealer in iron and steel. It appears that the original assessment was completed by the assessing authority. Subsequently proceedings under Section 21 of the U. P. Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) were initiated in which the turnover of Rs. 77,381.20 was subjected to tax by the Sales Tax Officer. The first appeal filed by the assessee before the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) was allowed. The Revenue feeling aggrieved against the aforesaid order preferred a second appeal before the Sales Tax Tribunal, Bench-I, Kanpur, which by order dated 28th November, 1985, allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) and restored that of the Sales Tax Officer. Being aggrieved against the aforesaid order of the Tribunal, the assessee has come to this Court in the instant revision.
(2.) The main dispute in the present revision is regarding issuance of form 3-Kha from the purchasing dealer to the assessee. It appears that the assessee did not realise sales tax from the purchasing dealer inasmuch as the purchasing dealer furnished form 3-Kha to the assessee issued by the sales tax department. Mr. Bharatji Agarwal has urged that since the purchasing dealer has issued form 3-Kha to the assessee it did not realise sales tax and if the purchasing dealer wrongly issued form 3-Kha, which it was not entitled to issue to the assessee, the purchasing dealer could be proceeded with under the provisions of Section 3-B of the Act but the authorities below have wrongly imposed tax on the assessee. Mr. P. K. Jain, learned counsel appearing for the Revenue, on the contrary submitted that since by notification dated 31st December, 1976 nuts and bolts ceased to be included in the list of the goods for the manufacture of which the raw materials were fully exempt, the assessee could not claim any benefit on the basis of form 3-Kha issued by the purchasing dealer. It may be true that nuts and bolts ceased to exist in the list of goods and the assessee is supposed to have knowledge about the notification and relevant laws and the ignorance of the said laws may not exonerate the assessee from the liability but since in the instant case the Tribunal has not adverted itself to the provisions of Section 3-B of the Act according to which the purchasing dealer should have been proceeded with, I think the matter has not been decided in its true perspective and requires reconsideration.
(3.) In the result the revision succeeds and is allowed. The order passed by the Tribunal is set aside and it is directed to decide the appeal afresh keeping in view the provisions of Section 3-B of the Act. However, there will be no order as to costs.;