RAJES KUMAR, J. - (1.) THESE two 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 January 25, 2000 relating to the assessment years 1991 -92 and 1992 -93 under the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948.
(2.) AT the instance of the Revenue following questions have been raised: (i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Trade Tax Tribunal is legally justified to quash the demand of interest created under Section 8(1) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act for the tax legally payable on the turnover admitted by the dealer? (ii) Whether the judgment of the Tribunal is correct in the eyes of law in the light of decision of the honourable Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. v. Qureshi Crucible Center [1993] 89 STC 467 : [1993] UPTC 901. Brief facts of the case are that the dealer/opposite party (hereinafter referred to as, 'the dealer') was carrying on the business of manufacture and sales of electronic goods. In the return, dealer had shown certain sales against form IIIB and admitted the tax liability at the concessional rate and claimed full exemption on some of the sales. It appears that before the assessing authority form IIIB for some of the sales were filed but form IIIB for some of the sales claiming full exemption and partial exemption could not be furnished. On account of non -furnishing of form IIIB, assessing authority disallowed the exemption as well as partial exemption, as the case may be and levied the tax at the normal rate applicable to the goods. The assessing authority treated the tax assessed as the tax admittedly payable along with return and demanded the interest under Section 8(1) of the Act at two per cent from the date of filing of the return till the date of deposit. The levy of tax on such turnover at normal rate has been confirmed up to the stage of Tribunal but the Tribunal has deleted the interest under Section 8(1) of the Act. Being aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, present revisions have been filed.
(3.) LEARNED Standing Counsel submitted that the dealer claimed the exemption or concessional rate of tax based on the furnishing of form IIIB. In the absence of form IIIB such turnover was liable to tax at the normal rate. It was on the dealer to substantiate the claim of exemption or concessional rate of tax as the case may be on furnishing of form IIIB. If dealer fails to furnish form IIIB, the tax at the normal rate of tax is deemed to be payable along with return when the liability to pay the tax was fixed under Section 7 of the Act read with rule 41 of the U.P. Trade Tax Rules, 1948. He submitted that issue involved has been considered in detail by this Court in the case of Commissioner of Trade Tax, U.P., Lucknow v. Jobex India reported in [2005] 28 NTN 175 and Commissioner of Trade Tax, U.P., Lucknow v. Deepak Hume Pipe Manufacturing Company reported in [2006] 29 NTN 104. He submitted that the stand of the department is supported by the decision of the apex court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. v. Qureshi Crucible Center reported in [1993] 89 STC 467 : [1993] UPTC 901.;