Intra-company transfer of goods does not breach concessional purchase conditions when the recognition certificate stands in the dealer's name.

Movement of tin containers between different units of the same company was treated as an internal adjustment, not a transfer from one person to another. Because the recognition certificate stood in the company's name, intra-company movement did not breach the concessional purchase conditions attached to section 4B of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948. Penalty under section 4B(6) was therefore unsustainable, and the order cancelling the penalty was left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether transfer of tin containers manufactured by one unit of the assessee-company to another unit of the same company amounted to a violation of section 4B of the U. P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 and justified levy of penalty under section 4B(6).

Analysis: The recognition certificate had been granted to the company itself, and the company carried on business through multiple units. Transfer of goods from one unit to another was only an internal arrangement within the same dealer and did not amount to transfer from one person to another. On the findings recorded, such intra-company movement of tin containers did not infringe the conditions attached to concessional purchase under section 4B. The penalty order was based only on the premise that movement from one unit to another was impermissible, which was not accepted.

Conclusion: The transfer of tin containers between units of the same company did not constitute a breach of section 4B, and the penalty was not sustainable.

Final Conclusion: The revision failed and the order cancelling the penalty was left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Movement of goods between units of the same registered dealer, where the recognition certificate stands in the dealer's name, is an internal adjustment and not a transfer attracting violation of the concessional purchase conditions under section 4B.

---