TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (7) TMI 917
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he dealer-opposite party under section 21 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948. The dealer-opposite party is a trader and deals in sale and purchase of iron and steel. For the relevant assessment year, i.e., 1989-90 it disclosed the purchases of iron and steel worth Rs. 5,51,55,913 as tax-paid purchases in U.P. All the purchases were made from three dealers. During the original assessment proceeding the assessing officer accepted the account books and treated the aforesaid purchases as tax-paid purchases made within the State of U.P. Thereafter, the necessary information was sent to the respective assessing officers to verify the aforesaid purchases as claimed by the dealer-opposite party. According to the dealer-opposite party, it has made the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he following two questions of law have been framed in the revision: "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Trade Tax Tribunal was legally justified to quash the order passed under section 21 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act? 2.. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the proceeding under section 21, Tribunal was legally justified to hold, that reassessment proceeding based on change of opinion as exemption was wrongly allowed?" The contention of the learned standing counsel for the Department is that there is an error apparent on the face of record in the order of the Tribunal. The Tribunal at the most could have set aside the direction given by the first appellate authority and should have rest....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unal was very much influenced from the fact that the dealer-opposite party has got purchase vouchers and its account books have been audited. But these facts by themselves coupled with the fact that such transactions have been denied by the selling dealers, do not absolve the dealer-opposite party. The facts remain that no reply to show-cause notice was filed, before the assessing officer by the dealer. The information which came in possession of the Department subsequent to the assessment order is required to be verified and investigated. The information was sufficient to negate the claim of the dealer-opposite party, prima facie at least. It is in the special knowledge of the dealer as to where from it made the purchases and he is require....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Sales Tax v. Mala Ram [1987] UPTC 471. In none of the aforesaid decisions, the attention of the court was drawn to the provisions of section 12A of the U.P. Trade Tax Act. In the cases of Mohd. Ishaq [1982] UPTC 432 and Punjab Tyres [1982] UPTC 408, the court took the view that a positive finding has to be recorded by the Department that the dealer had made sale of the commodity after importing it. In both these cases the commodity was taxable at the hands of the manufacturer or at the point of import. In absence of any such finding, the court took the view that burden did not lay on the assessee to establish that the commodity sold by him was not imported. The decisions laid therein are on the facts of those cases. The other aspect of the....