Exemption for wheat supplied to recognised roller flour mills upheld under Section 4B, with supplier conditions read contextually.

Section 4B(1)(a-1) of the Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax Act, 1948 and the Notification dated 29.08.2003 were construed to cover wheat sold or supplied by the first purchaser to a recognised roller flour mill. The phrase "or supplied" was held to be substantive and not redundant, and the non-obstante wording of Section 4B prevailed over Section 3D. The marginal note referring to "certain manufacturers" could not override the text of the provision. Conditions in the notification were read according to whether the transaction was a supply or a sale, so supplier-specific requirements could not be denied on the basis of seller-only conditions. The exemption was available and the tax demand could not stand.

---

---

Issues: Whether the exemption under Section 4B(1)(a-1) of the Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax Act, 1948 and the Notification dated 29.08.2003 applied to wheat supplied, and not merely sold, by the first purchaser to recognised roller flour mills, and whether the conditions in the notification could be read so as to deny that benefit to such supplier.

Analysis: Section 4B(1)(a-1) expressly extends special relief where declared goods are "sold or supplied" by the first purchaser to another dealer holding a valid recognition certificate. The Notification dated 29.08.2003 was issued under that provision and used the same language. The Court held that the words "or supplied" could not be treated as redundant, because the statutory text itself contemplated both sale and supply. The charging provision in Section 3D did not control the special relief provision, since Section 4B begins with a non-obstante clause and operates notwithstanding Section 3D. The marginal note referring to "certain manufacturers" could not override the body of the provision, which grants the benefit to the first purchaser dealer. The conditions in the notification were read in their proper context, so that a supplier was required to satisfy only the conditions relevant to supply, while the seller-specific conditions did not apply to it.

Conclusion: The assessee was entitled to the exemption under Section 4B(1)(a-1) and the Notification dated 29.08.2003, and the denial of benefit was ; the demand could not be sustained.

---