2007 (5) TMI 576

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rom paddy. The dispute relates to the assessment year 1988-89. It arises out of the proceedings initiated by the department under section 4B(5) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 against the applicant for levying penalty under aforesaid section. The facts are not in dispute. The applicant is a recognition certificate holder and is authorised to purchase paddy at the concessional rate of tax or wit....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d June 29, 2001 is under challenge in the present revision. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the authorities below have committed illegality in levying the penalty of Rs. 20,000. Reliance has been placed upon a Notification No. 2604 dated March 19, 1979 as also on Notification No. 2601 dated February 28, 1994. It has been found by the Tribunal that benefit of the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ied. The said contention is devoid of any substance. The fact remains that the applicant purchased the paddy at concessional rate of tax or without payment of tax, being a recognition certificate holder. He was under a legal obligation to utilise the said paddy for the manufacture of the notified item, namely, rice, in the present case. In Commissioner of Sales Tax v. B.S. Industries [2004] 25 ....