TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1986 (8) TMI 433
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the facts of the case the applicant was liable to tax on stock of foodgrains in hand worth Rs. 14,287.69 as on 2nd September, 1976? (2) Whether the benefit of form 3-Ka in regard to the paddy sales of Rs. 6,967.14 has been correctly disallowed by the Tribunal? The facts with regard to the first point of sales of foodgrains amounting to Rs. 14,287.69 and the controversy arising in connection therewith are as under: The applicant is a dealer in foodgrains. Under a notification dated 1st September, 1976, foodgrain was declared as an essential commodity under section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act and consequently thereafter tax could be levied only at the point of sale to the consumer. The argument of Mr. V.N. Tandon, learned counse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Division Bench decisions of this Court. In Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Mathura Das Ram Saran Das [1977] 40 STC 71 (All.); 1976 UPTC 518 the facts are these. The assessee was a dealer holding stocks of yarn on 1st August, 1958. Admittedly yarn was taxable at single point before 1st August, 1958. It was taxable either in the hands of the importer or the manufacturer. The State Government issued a notification on 1st August, 1958, as a result of which the turnover in respect of cotton yarn became taxable at the point of sale by the dealer to consumer. The judge (Revisions) had recorded a finding in that case that the stock of cotton yarn which was with the assessee was sold by it to the consumer. He was further of the view that the said y....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... other subsequent stage. The case of Mathura Das Ram Saran Das [1977] 40 STC 71 (All.); 1976 UPTC 518 was distinguished by the said Division Bench on the ground that in that case there arose no occasion to consider either section 14 or section 15 of the Central Sales Tax Act. Having regard to the facts of the present case, in my opinion, the present case is covered by the ratio decided in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Chokhani Company [1982] 51 STC 195 (All.); 1982 UPTC 45. In this view of the matter, it was not open to the Sales Tax Tribunal to hold that the assessee was not entitled to the benefit of section 3-AAA of the U.P. Sales Tax Act. I, therefore, held that the assessee was entitled to the benefit of exemption of sect....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the present case, I, however, find that this question was specifically raised in ground No. 14(g) before the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) and again in ground No. 6 before the Tribunal and the present case is better than the case of Sri Shambhoo Nath Dalal. However, in the aforesaid decision in the case of Shambhoo Nath Dalal 1980 UPTC 488 the court observed as follows: "The order of refusal is contrary to sub-rule (22). The assessee is not raising any factual controversy. There is no reason to shut him out only because he failed to raise it before the appellate authority. The failure on his part did not result in removing infirmity in the order being contrary to rule.............As pointed out above it was not for dealer to explai....