1996 (11) TMI 435

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....vision No. 1081 of 1989 is directed against the Tribunal's order dated 19th July, 1989, passed in second appeal No. 540 of 1982 for assessment year 1979-80. The two impugned orders have been passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal, Bench II, Bareilly. 2.. I have heard Sri Bharat Ji Agrawal, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri H.R. Misra, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent. 3.. The revisionist manufactures G.P. buckets which are used in persian wheels for drawing water from wells for irrigation purposes. The sale thereof is exempt from tax under the Act by virtue of a notification issued by the Government under section 4. Under section 4-B a dealer who is liable to tax on the turnover of first purchases and holds a recognition ce....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.........issued to me/us by the Sales Tax Officer...........Circle No...........dated......................and which is effective from..................................Certified that I/we carry on business at (full address)................................................................................under the name and style of..........................................................................." 4.. Section 3-B of the Act provides that a person who issued a false or wrong certificate or declaration, prescribed under any provisions of this Act or the rules framed thereunder, to another person by reason of which a tax leviable under this Act on the transaction of purchase or sale made with or by such other person ceases to be leviable or....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... assessing officer is immaterial and if a recognition certificate has been wrongly issued then a declaration in form III-B would be deemed to be wrong. This view is absolutely untenable because it is against the specific terms of section 3-B as well as section 4-B. The Tribunal has, in support of its view referred, inter alia, to a Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Vikas Corporation 1989 UPTC 351, which states that if the requirements of section 3-B of the Act are met and the assessee has succeeded in avoiding the payment of tax in such a situation the Tribunal was in error in holding otherwise. This brief judgment does not support the revenue at all and is specifically against the revenue when it says that what is required for the levy of tax u....