VIKRAM NATH, J. - (1.) THIS trade tax revision under Section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Act') has been filed by M/s. Shiva Electronics (India) Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as, 'the dealer') assailing the correctness of the judgment and order dated June 10, 1997 passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal, Bench -II, Ghaziabad, whereby it allowed the second appeal filed by the Department and restored the order passed by the assessing authority under Section 22 of the Act.
(2.) THE dispute relates to the assessment year 1988 -89. The original assessment order for the relevant assessment year was passed on April 29,1991. The dealer had declared total taxable turnover as Rs. 1,15,68,248.50. The total tax liability determined in the original assessment order was Rs. 6,92,632.80. With regard to the inter -State sales made by the dealer without form 'C' prior to September 30,1988 tax at the rate of 12 per cent was charged. Whereas with regard to the Central sales made after October 1, 1988 till March 31,1989 without form 'C' tax at 13.2 per cent was charged which included the additional tax also. This distinction in the application of different rate of tax for different periods is not explained. As the dealer had already deposited Rs 6,76,382.60, demand for the balance amount of Rs. 16,250.20 was raised along with the interest at two per cent per month for the delayed period. Subsequently notice was given to the dealer under Section 22 of the Act on the ground that on the aforementioned inter -State sales, without form 'C' the dealer was liable to pay additional tax also at 1.2 per cent in view of Section 8(2A) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 read with Section 3E of the Act and as this amount of the additional tax has been left out why it should not be recovered. Basis for issuing this notice was the judgment of the apex court dated January 16, 1992 in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Aysha Hosiery Factory (P) Ltd. reported in [1992] 85 STC 106 (SC) : [1992] UPTC 454. The dealer filed his objections to the show -cause notice under Section 22 of the Act, which did not find favour with the assessing authority and it revised the assessment and a revised demand for the additional tax on the inter -State sales without form 'C' made prior to September 30,1988 was raised vide order dated November 19, 1992. The dealer filed appeal which was allowed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) vide judgment dated April 20,1993. The appellate authority in view of the circular dated August 20,1982 and the decision of this Court in the case of U.P. Ceramics and Potteries Limited v. Commissioner of Sales Tax reported in [1992] UPTC 1333 that additional tax would not be leviable on Central transactions, held that for the whole of the assessment year no additional tax could be charged on Central sales. Aggrieved by the same the Department filed second appeal before the Tribunal which has been allowed by the impugned judgment and order and after setting aside the order of the appellate authority, the assessment under Section 22 of the Act has been restored. Aggrieved by the same the dealer has preferred this revision. The following question of law has been sought to be raised in this revision: Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is legally justified in reversing the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) and confirming the demand of additional tax under Section 22
(3.) I have heard Sri Kunwar Saxena, learned Counsel for the dealer and Sri B. K. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the department.;