AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (2) TMI 600
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "the Central Act"). Brief facts of the case are that the dealer/opposite party (hereinafter referred to as "the dealer") applied for registration under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 for the manufacturing of ice. During the proceedings for grant of registration statement of Sri Ramesh Chandra was recorded on July 12, 1987, in which he has categorically stated that he would sell the ice after manufacturing ice in the cold storage and only for the purpose of the manufacturing registration was required. The registration was granted by the assessing authority on July 3, 1987 with effect from June 8, 1987 for the manufacturing of ice and the dealer was allowed to purchase compressor machines, ice p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ingly, held that on the facts stated above, it cannot be said that there was a default under section 10A of the Act. For the assessment year 1988-89 the dealer had purchased wood for Rs. 87,288 against form "C" and admittedly used such wood in the construction of cold storage. The assessing authority issued notice under section 10A of the Act for the alleged default of section 10(d) of the Central Act on the ground that such wood was used in the construction of the cold storage and not in the construction of ice factory. The dealer filed reply. On the consideration of reply, notice under section 10A of the Act was vacated and the proceeding was dropped. The Deputy Commissioner (Executive) initiated the proceeding under section 10B of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sed and thus, if the wood have been used in the construction of cold storage and not in the ice plant it cannot be said to be a default under section 10(d) of the Central Act. Being aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, present revisions have been filed. Heard learned Standing Counsel and Sri R.R. Agrawal, learned counsel for the dealer. Learned Standing Counsel submitted that the dealer was granted registration under the Central Sales Tax Act for the manufacturing of ice and, therefore, it was entitled to purchase various items at concessional rate, which were required for the manufacturing of ice only. He submitted that the dealer had only constructed cold storage and had not constructed ice factory and the manufacturing of ice ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted in the reply. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the order of the Tribunal and the authorities below and the documents filed along with counter-affidavit and the supplementary affidavit. It may be mentioned here that the cases cited by learned counsel for the dealer do not apply in the present case and are clearly distinguishable. In the case of Commercial Taxes Officer v. Foreign Import & Export Association [1994] 95 STC 101 (SC) the dealer was carrying on the business of dyeing raw wool, had imported material from outside the State of U.P. against form "C" and such materials have been used in the dyeing of raw wool belonging to other dealers carried on job-work basis. On the facts of the case....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fault. In the present case, such situation does not exist. In the present case, registration was sought and granted for the manufacturing of ice. Admittedly, ice factory had not been established and the manufacturing of ice had not been carried on. Thus, no case of reasonable excuse has been made out. Admittedly, the dealer was granted registration under section 7 of the Act for the manufacturing of ice. Under the registration certificate, the dealer was entitled to purchase the goods from outside the State of U. P. at concessional rate of tax required for use in the ice factory for the manufacturing of ice. Admittedly, the goods, which have been imported from outside the State of U.P. in the years under consideration were used in the....