TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (8) TMI 859
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in dispute. Only a legal point is involved, therefore, we are noticing the minimal facts to understand and resolve the controversy. 3. The petitioner during the relevant assessment year 2001-2002 disclosed the sale of liquid detergent against the form 3-B amounting to Rs.16,28,408/- to M/s. Modi Rubber Limited, Modipuram, Meerut and M/s. Modi Tyre Factory, Modi Nagar, Meerut. It could not produce form 3-B in the course of assessment proceedings, which was concluded by the order dated 3rd February, 2002 by creating a demand of Rs.3,47,688/- due to the absence of form 3-B. The disclosed turnover was accepted. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application under Rule 25-B within the prescribed period of limitation of six months enclosing the requisite form before the Assessing Authority. The Assessing Authority after getting the form 3-B verified through the Deputy Commissioner, Trade Tax, Modi Nagar rectified the demand and reduced it to Rs.25,180/- by the order dated 31st of May, 2004. Thereafter, it appears, a proposal was submitted by the Assessing Authority to the Additional Commissioner Grade-I, Commercial Tax Meerut Zone seeking permission to reopen the assessment on the gr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... only dispute which could be pointed out by the department is that one form 3-B filed on 31st of March, 2004, is in respect of Rs.43,00,050/-. The bone of contention of the department is that under Rule 25-B Sub-rule 4, one single form can not cover more than Rs. 5 Lakhs and as such, the said Form 3-B is valid for an amount up to Rs. 5 Lakhs on which the benefit of concessional rate of tax has been granted and for the rest, the department contends that the petitioner is liable to pay the tax at full rate. This is the point in issue in the present case. In other words, the scope and ambit of Rule 25-B (4) is involved. 8. Sub-rule (4) of Rule 25-B has been subjected to amendments from time to time and it is relevant to notice the amendments. Section 25-B (4) as it stood earlier is reproduced below:- (4) "Before furnishing a declaration form to the selling dealer, the purchasing dealer or one of the persons mentioned in sub-rule (1) of Rule 25-A shall fill in all the required particulars and shall sign it. Thereafter the counter-foil of the form shall be retained by the purchasing dealer and the other two portions marked "Original" and "Duplicate" shall be made over by him to th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed Sub-rule 4 reads as follows:- (4) "Before furnishing a declaration form to the selling dealer, the purchasing dealer or one of the persons mentioned in sub-rule (1) of Rule 25-A shall fill in all the required particulars and shall sign it. Thereafter the counterfoil of the form shall be retained by the purchasing dealer and the other two portions marked "Original" and "Duplicate" shall be made over by him to the selling dealer : Provided that no single form shall cover the transactions of purchase or sale, of more than one assessment year and of value more than Rupees five lakhs: Provided further that the restriction of mentioning transactions of sale or purchase of more than Rupees Five Lakhs, shall not apply to department of the Central Government or the State Government or a Corporation or Undertaking established or constituted by or under a Central Act or an Uttar Pradesh Act or a Government Company as defined in Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956, having a yearly turnover of Rupees Five crore or more." (Source 2003 LLT Part V page 102) 13. It was again substituted by the U.P. Trade (Third Amendment) Rules, 2003 (w.e.f. 30.4.2003). Sub-rule (4) is reproduc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... restriction of sale or purchase of more than Rs. 5 Lakhs shall not apply. Vividly, the above is the history of Sub-rule (4). Now, the limited question which is required to be answered, is which one of amended Rules would apply to the facts of the present case. 15. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner filed the form 3-B within the prescribed period of six months after the Assessment Order, on 31st of July, 2004. By that time, the clause (ii) of second proviso to Sub-rule 4 of Rule 25 B had come on the Statute Book. The petitioner contends that its selling dealer namely Modi Rubber had a turnover of more than Rs.25 crores validly issued a single form covering sale/purchase transaction of Rs. 43,00,156/-. The stand of the department is that the matter relates to the Assessment Year 2001-2002 and therefore, the relevant Rule as stood before the U.P. Trade Tax (Third Amendment) Rule, 2003, bereft of clause (ii) to sub-section (4) of section 35 would be applicable, notwithstanding the subsequent amendment in the Rule. 16. On a consideration of respective submissions of the counsel for the parties, we find that the Rule in question is in the nature of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....other mode but certain observations made therein are useful here. It has been laid down that the filing of the prescribed form is mandatory as this mode of proof is the sole or exclusive mode of proof made by the legislature. It follows that filing of form is a mode to prove the essential ingredients required under a particular provision to prove the existence of certain facts for availing the concessional rate or nil rate of tax. That is all. Here also, the requirement of form 3B is to prove that the said transaction took place in between the selling dealer and the purchasing dealer, being recognition certificate holder and manufacturer of specified goods and purchased the goods in question as raw material for the manufacture of the specified goods. The nature of the amendment made in Sub-rule (4) being remedial with a view to whittle down the rigour of Sub-rule (4), it should be given retrospective effect in such circumstances. 19. At this juncture, we may usefully refer a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Allied Motors Versus CIT (1997) 224 ITR 677. The aforesaid decision has been given with reference to section 43 B of the Income Tax Act which provides certain deduct....