COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX Vs. PRABHUDAYAL PREM NARAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Notice was issued on this special leave application stating that the matter would be disposed of finally at the notice stage itself. None has appeared pursuant to the notice. We have considered the matter and heard Shri Manchanda, counsel for the petitioner. Special leave is granted and the appeal is disposed of by the judgment herein.

(2.) This appeal arises from the judgment and order of the High Court of Allahabad, dated 18th August, 1982. The said judgment was delivered on a revision application filed before the High Court. The application related to the assessment year 1977-78 under the U.P. Sales Tax Act. The first question involved before the High Court of Allahabad was whether the purchase of pulses effected by the assessee prior to 1-5-1977 could be subjected to tax under Section 30(2) of the Sales Tax Act. The Tribunal held that these could be so subjected.

(3.) The High Court referred to the Notification No.ST-III-2712/X-6(2)-77 U.P. Act XV-48-order-77 and held that the contention of the assessee could not be accepted that he had purchased the pulses in question before 1st May, 1977. There was no dispute on this contention raised subsequently. The only contention that was urged before the High Court was that the Asstt. Commissioner (Judicial), was about granting relief to the assessee in respect of this turnover on pulses of Rs 3,75,500/- to the extent of Rs 3,19,679/- on the basis of certain evidences that had been produced before the assessing authority and the Asstt. Commissioner. The Tribunal was of the view that since the assesee had not furnished Form III-C(1), he was not entitled to any exemption under Section 3-D of the Act. It appears that in the case of Abdul Ghani Banne Khan v. CST 1982 UPTC 665, a learned single Judge of the High Court of Allahabad held that on the language of Section 3D(7-b), the assessee was entitled to lead evidence to the satisfaction of the assessing authority that the sale was made to a registered dealer and was not confined only to furnishing Form III-C(2). There was, however, an earlier decision to the contrary in the case of Commr. of Sales Tax v. Kailash Trading Co., 1981 UPTC 821 of the same Court which has been referred to in this case.