Ashwani Kumar Mishra, J. - (1.) This revision under Section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, questions an order passed by the Tribunal dated 11.6.2003, allowing department's second appeal, and thereby holding the assessee liable to pay interest under Section 8 (1) of the Act, on the ground that tax payable thereunder was admitted.
(2.) Undisputed facts are that assessee is engaged in manufacturing and sale of G.I. Pipes, Steel Tubes etc. For such manufacturing activity, it purchases raw materials against form III-B. In respect of assessment year 1998-99, the revisionist submitted its books of account disclosing its turnover and liability to pay tax and also claimed set-off under Section 4- BB of the Act to the extent of Rs. 57,76,673.57/-. The Assessing Authority, however, allowed benefit under Section 4-BB to the extent of Rs. 42,26,036/- only as against the amount claimed of Rs. 57,76,673.57/-. Since turnover was accepted, the Tribunal treated the shortfall in tax to be admitted, and thereby required payment of interest under Section 8 (1) of the Act. The assessee felt aggrieved and preferred an appeal. The appeal was partly allowed in so far as payment of interest is concerned, on the premise that there was a bona fide dispute with regard to liability to pay tax, and the assessment order was passed after nearly 31/2 years. The benefit of set-off to the extent of Rs.42,26,036/- was affirmed but interest was held to be payable under Section 8(1-B). The department preferred a second appeal under Section 10 before the Tribunal, which has been allowed and liability to pay interest in terms of Section 8(1) of the Act, has been restored. Aggrieved by such determination, the assessee has preferred the present revision.
(3.) Sri R.R. Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri R.R. Kapoor submitted on behalf of the assessee that there was a bona fide dispute with regard to amount admissible towards set off, under Section 4- BB of the Act, and deficient amount of tax could not be treated to be admitted tax so as to incur liability of interest under Section 8(1) of the Act. Learned counsel in support of such contention has relied upon decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in E.I.D. Parry (India) Ltd. v. Assist. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Chennai, (2005) 4 SCC 779 , and also upon Division Bench judgement of this Court in Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Idhah, Agra v. Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P., Lucknow, (2011) 15 VLJ 217 , M/s. Kohinoor Jewellers v. State of U.P. and others, 2013 U.P.T.C. 865 , M/s. Bharti Airtel Ltd. v. State of U.P. and others, 2015 (24) VSTI B-1477 , and also in Sales/Trade Tax Revision No. 160 of 2006 (M/s Maiden Industries v. The Commissioner of Trade Tax,U.P. Lucknow).;