1981 (2) TMI 225

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he Act, in respect of the purchases of gur amounting to Rs. 1,35,345.00 the assessee claimed that it was not liable to tax under section 3-D(2) because those purchases had already suffered tax and it was not the first purchaser thereof -and in support of that contention filed one single certificate in form III-C(I). The assessing authority did not accept the assessee's contention because it was of the opinion that one single certificate covering more than one transaction was not legal and valid and accordingly the entire amount of Rs. 1,35,345.00 was brought to tax under section 3-D(2) of the Act. That view was confirmed by the appellate authority, but on further revision, the Additional Judge (Revisions) has taken the view that in the abse....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ertificate cannot cover more than one transaction. In the present case the certificate furnished by the assessee in form III-C(I) covered more than one transaction. Of course, the assessee should have been given choice to indicate the transaction which he wanted to be covered by the certificate filed by it. The certificate filed by it could not have been rejected in toto. In Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Kanpur Engineering Stores [1976] 38 STC 234; 1976 UPTC 326 an almost similar question but with reference to the application of the proviso to rule 8(1-C) of the Central Sales Tax Uttar Pradesh Rules, 1957, had come up for consideration. In that case the assessee had claimed benefit of lower rate of tax under section 8(1) of the Central Ac....