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 selling dealer could be denied concessional tax merely because the purchasing corporation had issued the prescribed declaration in form III-D, and whether liability for any false declaration lay on the purchasing dealer rather than the selling dealer.
Analysis: Section 3-G of the U.P. Trade Tax Act grants concessional tax where the dealer furnishes the prescribed certificate from the department, corporation, undertaking or company. The proviso in section 3-G(2) excludes purchases for resale or for use in manufacture or packing of goods. The Court noted that the declaration in form III-D had been furnished by the U.P. State Sugar Corporation and accepted by the selling dealer. It further held that, if the declaration was false, the liability would shift to the purchasing dealer under section 3-B unless collusion between the selling and purchasing dealer was shown. No such collusion or deliberate acceptance of a false certificate was established.
Conclusion: The selling dealer was entitled to concessional tax and could not be subjected to the normal rate on the facts found.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the prescribed declaration for concessional purchase is furnished and bona fide accepted, the selling dealer is protected from normal-rate assessment, and any liability arising from a false declaration falls on the purchasing dealer absent collusion.