TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (12) TMI 659
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....p to the June 3, 1986 from the open market on which the assessee has accepted his tax liability by issuing form 3-C(1) also and even when the assessee has not followed the conditions as prescribed in the Notification No. ST-II-6467/X-6(29)-76-U.P. ActXV-48-Order-79/18th July, 1979." Brief facts of the case are that the dealer-opposite party (hereinafter referred to as "the dealer") was engaged in the business of manufacture of atta, maida and suji. Wheat was raw material for the manufacture of atta, maida and suji. Dealer was granted recognition certificate under section 4Bof the Act for the purchase of wheat at the concessional rate for the manufacture of atta, maida and suji on December 10, 1985 with effect from December 9, 1985. In th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssued on December 10, 1985 with effect from October 9, 1985 granting exemption on the purchase of wheat for the manufacture of atta, maida and suji and in form 19 the recognition certificate was made subject to the provisions of the Act, rule and orders, therefore, exemption was subject to the notification. He further submitted that the exemption under the recognition certificate was on the purchase of wheat, but if the notification contemplated the exemption on the purchase of wheat only from the Food Corporation of India, the recognition certificate is to be read along with the notification. He submitted that it is the notification which grants exemption and not the recognition certificate and the recognition certificate granted under the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ia reported in [1999] 236 ITR 1 and the decision of the apex Court in the case of Hira Lal Hari Lal Bhagwati v. C.B.I., New Delhi reported in [2003] 5 SCC 257. On merit, he submitted that prior to the Notification No. ST-II-6889/X-6(29)76-U.P. Act No. XV-48-Order-78 dated August 31, 1978, there was no condition in the notification granting exemption on the purchases of wheat purchased from Food Corporation of India, and exemption was available on all the purchases made from all sources. He submitted that since in the recognition certificate, there was no condition that only the purchases of wheat made from Food Corporation of India was eligible for exemption, dealer claimed exemption on the purchases made from various dealers other than Foo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 (U.P. Act No. XV of 1948), read with section 21 of the U.P. General Clauses Act, 1904 (U.P. Act No. 1 of 1904), and in supersession of Government Notification No. ST-II-6889/X-6(29)-76-U.P. Act XV-48-Order-78, dated August 31, 1978, the Governor is pleased to declare 'atta, maida and suji manufactured by the roller flour mills', to be 'notified goods' for the purposes of the said section. The Governor is further pleased to exempt, with immediate effect, subject to the conditions and restrictions specified in the said section, a roller flour mill holding a recognition certificate, from payment of tax on the purchase of wheat required by it for use as raw material in the manufacture of the said n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ench of this court in the case of Mentha & Allied Products v. State of U.P. reported in [1996] 103 STC 316; [1996] 30 ATJ 151, held that the exemption wholly or partly does not flow from the recognition certificate but from the notification published in the Gazette by the State Government in that behalf. It further held as follows: "Sri Bharat Ji Agarwal lost sight of the fact that exemption was granted to the petitioner by the notification of August 29, 1987, and not by the recognition certificate (annexure '3' to the writ petition). The recognition certificate not being the source of exemption, but merely one of the conditions to be fulfilled for qualifying for exemption, no amendment as a matter of fact, is needed in the re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ttlement of the dispute and the tax. There is no condition under the scheme, which contemplates that after the application under the scheme the department could not contest the matter with regard to those tax, which has been deleted by the first appellate authority. The decision cited by learned counsel for the dealer of the Delhi High Court in the case of All India Federation of Tax Practitioners v. Union of India reported in [1999] 236 ITR 1 and the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Hira Lal Hari Lal Bhagwati v. C.B.I., New Delhi reported in [2003] 5 SCC 257 are not relevant to the present case. They are cases relating to the "Kar Samadhan Scheme" issued by the Central Government under the Finance Act to settle the dispute of tax ....