Rajes Kumar, J. - (1.) PRESENT revision under Section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") is directed against the order of the Tribunal dated July 28, 1999 relating to the assessment year 1993 -94 under the U.P. Trade Tax Act.
(2.) DEALER /opposite party (hereinafter referred to as "the dealer") purchased rice bran as a commission agent for and on behalf of the principal against form IIIB. On the basis of the aforesaid form IIIB dealer claimed the benefit of concessional rate of tax on the purchases of rice bran. The benefit of concessional rate of tax had been disallowed by the assessing authority and by the first appellate authority also on the ground that rice bran was not a declared commodity. The Tribunal however, allowed the benefit of concessional rate of tax relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Shri Mahalaxmi Industries reported in, [1980] UPTC 679. Heard learned Standing Counsel. Despite the service of notice, no one appears on behalf of the opposite party. The learned Standing Counsel submitted that the issue involved in the present revision is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Trade Tax v. Malti Devi, Deoria reported in, [2000] 120 STC 537 ;, [2000] UPTC 294. This court held that since the rice bran was not a declared commodity, the provisions of Section 4B(l)(al) of the Act does not apply. Decision of the learned single judge in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Shri Mahalaxmi Industries, [1980] UPTC 679 has been considered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Agarwala Brothers v. Commissioner of Sales Tax reported in, [1990] UPTC 76. The Division Bench of this Court held that the decision in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Shri Mahalaxmi Industries, [1980] UPTC 679 did not lay down the correct law. Division Bench of this Court held that under Section 4B(1) the benefit is allowable only to those dealers, who are holding recognition certificate. Those dealers, who are not holding recognition certificate are not entitled for the benefit under Section 4B(1) of the Act. After the decision in the case of Agarwala Brothers v. Commissioner of Sales Tax reported in, [1990] UPTC 76, Sub -section (al) has been added in Section 4B(1) of the Act with effect from May 1, 1977 providing the benefit even to those dealers, who are not holding recognition certificate in respect of the transactions of the declared goods only. Section 4B(l)(al) of the Act read as follows: Section 4B. Special relief to certain manufacturers. - -(1)... (a1) Where any declared goods liable to tax under Sub -section (1) of Section 3D are sold or supplied by a dealer, who is the first purchaser thereof, to another dealer, holding a valid recognition certificate issued under Sub -section (2) in respect thereof, the dealer who made the first purchase shall in respect of such purchase and subject to such conditions and restrictions as may be specified by notification in that behalf, be exempt from tax or be liable to tax at such concessional rate as may be notified by the State Government: Provided that any notification under this clause or Clause (a) in respect of paddy may be made effective from a date not earlier than the first day of May, 1977: Provided further that the Rules to carry out the objects of this clause or Clause (a) may also be made effective from the date not earlier than the first day of May, 1997.
(3.) SINCE the rice bran is not a declared commodity, the benefit of concessional rate of tax is not admissible to the dealer on their purchases, where admittedly they are not holding the recognition certificate under Section 4B(2) of the Act. In this view of the matter, the order of the Tribunal is erroneous and is liable to be set aside.;