Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the assessee was entitled to the benefit of section 4-B of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 on sales made against Form 3 Kha issued by customers holding recognition certificates, and whether the later notification of 11 June 1974 had superseded the earlier notification dated 10 October 1968.
Analysis: The dispute turned on whether the earlier notification declaring certain goods as notified goods for the purposes of section 4-B continued to operate on the relevant date. The Tribunal had proceeded on the basis of the 11 June 1974 notification, but that notification did not expressly supersede the earlier notification dated 10 October 1968. If the earlier notification remained in force, and the sales were made to recognised dealers against Form 3 Kha, the assessee could not be denied the statutory benefit merely because tax was not realised from the purchasers. The matter therefore required reconsideration on the footing of the correct notification regime.
Conclusion: The assessee was entitled to have the claim under section 4-B examined afresh on the basis of the earlier notification, and the Tribunal's contrary view could not stand.
Ratio Decidendi: A benefit conferred by a valid notification under section 4-B cannot be denied unless the notification has been lawfully superseded or withdrawn, and the authority must decide the claim with reference to the notification actually in force on the relevant date.