AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (7) TMI 1189
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent not to proceed with the proceeding under section 21 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act for the assessment year 1997-98 (U.P.) and 1997-98 (Central)." The background facts of the case in a nutshell are essentially as follows: The petitioner is carrying on the business of manufacture of menthol and D.M.O. etc., after purchasing mentha oil. The regular assessment under rule 41 of the U.P. Trade Tax Rules, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as, "the Rules") was framed by the respondent on March 28, 2000 for the assessment year 1997-98 (U.P.). The petitioner disclosed tax-paid purchases of menthol oil against form IIIC(2) for Rs. 51 lacs. The purchases of tax-paid menthol oil were made from M/s. Laxmi Trading Company, Noorpur, Bijnor by means of three invoices. In each of the invoices issued by M/s. Laxmi Trading Company it was mentioned that menthol oil is taxpaid and it is against form IIIC(2). At the time of original assessment the assessing officer verified the three invoices and also signed the same by putting his signatures on it. The payment of the aforesaid purchases of menthol oil covered with the aforesaid three bills was made ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd signed by the respondent on March 30, at the time of regular assessment. It has been further submitted that the notice issued under section 21 of the Act is based on the letter dated July 3, 2000 of the Trade Tax Officer, Chandpur indicating that M/s. Laxmi Trading Company has not disclosed the sale of menthol oil in its returns, although the Trade Tax Officer, Chandpur, Bijnor has admitted that form IIIC(2) No. 109941 was issued by him and it was not a forged one. It was further submitted that provisions of section 21 of the Act cannot be resorted to for the purposes of inquiry or verification which has no direct nexus or live-link between the material coming to the notice of the assessing officer. It was further submitted that before the issuance of notice under section 21 of the Act dated March 29, 2000, no reasons for arriving at his satisfaction were recorded; hence the entire reassessment proceedings are liable to be quashed. It was also submitted that form IIIB No. 032474 was issued on December 22, 1998 by the respondent. As such, the said form was not shown to have been used in the assessment year 1997-98. Thus the basis of issuance of notice under section 21 of the Act....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....issued to M/s. Laxmi Trading Company. It is neither the case of the respondent-Department that M/s. Laxmi Trading Company was a fictitious concern nor does the respondent say that form IIIC(2) No. 109941 was a forged one. The record of the case shows that it was issued by the Trade Tax Officer, Chandpur to M/s. Laxmi Trading Company in accordance with the Rules. If the selling dealer does not submit account of user of the form IIIC(2) issued to him that can never be a valid ground for rejection of the claim of the petitioner since there was no fault of the petitioner if the selling dealer does not disclose the transaction in its books of account and furnish details to its assessing officer. We are fortified in our view by the decision of this court in Om Trading Company v. Commissioner of Trade Tax [2000] UPTC 227, wherein it has been held that there was no fault of the assessee if other dealer who issued the form did not furnish the details to its assessing officer. This apart, assessment under section 21 of the Act has already been made against M/s. Laxmi Trading Company on September 5, 2000 imposing tax on the purchases of menthol oil after taking into consideration the inform....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f hearing. 4. That in reply to the contents of para 4 of supplementary counterffidavit it is submitted that the dealer-company has issued form No. IIIB No. 032474 to M/s. Shyam Plastic Industry, Sitarganj district Udham Singh Nagar for Rs. 46,399.80 for the purchases related to assessment year 1997-98. This form was issued by the Department on October 28, 1998 and the dealer-company had issued the said form on July 22, 1999. The purchase of bill mentioned in this form has been shown in the purchase of packing material for the assessment year 1997-98, the list of purchase was filed along with other details at the time of assessment and was on assessment record. The information received from ACTT Khatima is verifiable from the assessment record itself. The purchase list of packing material for the assessment for 1997-98 is enclosed herewith as annexure-SRA1 to this affidavit." The aforesaid averments clearly show that two forms No. 415678 and 415679 were used by the petitioner for the purchase of polythene bags from M/s. Jain Plastic Industries and M/s. Anurag Plastic Product, respectively. One form was used in the assessment year 1996-97 and the other form was used in the a....