TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (7) TMI 936
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of exemption as set out by the dealer-opposite party on the ground that it had made tax-paid purchases against forms IIIC(2) and IIIC(5) was allowed. Subsequently, on verification it was found by the Department that certain forms IIIC allegedly issued by M/s. Yadav Traders, Mandi Samiti Konch, Jalaun were found to be fabricated and forged. It was found that these forms were never issued by the assessing authority to M/s. Yadav Traders, Jalaun and, therefore, the said party never issued these forms to the dealer-opposite party. On this basis, the assessing authority had reason to believe that the exemption on the basis of the forged forms was allowed wrongly. Proceeding under section 21 of the Act to determine the escaped turnover was init....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ty of tax on such purchases is the admitted liability of dealer-opposite party who is under statutory liability to pay the interest on the said turnover covered by form IIIC(2). The learned counsel for the assessee, on the other hand, submits that in view of the judgment of this court in the case of Annapurna Biscuit Manufacturing Co. [1982] 50 STC 56; [1980] UPTC 1320, the Tribunal has committed no illegality in holding that the dealer-opposite party is under no legal obligation to pay the interest. Considered the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The controversy in the present case centers round the understanding of the judgment of the Division Bench in Annapurna Biscuit Manufacturing ....