RAMRAJ RICE MILLS Vs. COMMISSIONER TRADE TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Feeling aggrieved by the order dated January 29, 2000, passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal, Meerut, Bench II, Meerut, in Appeal Nos. 93 of 1999, 94 of 1999 and 96 of 1999 relating to the assessment years 1986-87, 1987-88 and 1992-93 the assessee-applicant has filed these three revisions under Section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948.

(2.) The facts of the case giving rise to the present revisions are as follows : The applicant is a registered dealer and runs a rice mill. It is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of rice. The applicant holds a recognition certificate under Section 4-B(2) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948--hereinafter referred to as "the Act". It had made purchase of paddy directly from the farmers without issuing any form III-B to them as also from the wholesalers against form III-B without payment of any tax on its purchases. The rice manufactured by the applicant out of paddy so purchased has been sold by the applicant in the State of U.P., in the course of inter-State trade and commerce and to the Regional Food Controller under the Rice Levy Scheme. Apart from it the applicant had effected sale of rice amounting to Rs. 13,80,942.65, during the assessment year 1986-87 ; Rs. 9,12,002.76 during the assessment year 1987-88 and Rs. 5,52,931 during the assessment year 1992-93 through commission agents outside the State of U.P. The applicant claimed that it is not liable to pay any tax on such sales of rice which it had effected outside the U.P. through commission agents. The Sales Tax Officer (A), Mawana, initiated proceedings under Section 4-B(6) of the Act on the ground that the applicant being a recognition certificate holder and having purchased paddy from the farmers and also from the registered dealers had claimed exemption from payment of tax on such purchases on the strength of the recognition certificate was not entitled to effect sale of rice manufactured out of such paddy through commission agents outside the State of U.P. The assessing officer vide separate orders for all the three years imposed penalty under Section 4-B(6) of the Act. The applicant filed three first appeals under Section 9 of the Act before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Trade Tax, who vide order dated January 13, 1999 had upheld the imposition of penalty. The second appeals filed under Section 10 of the Act had been dismissed by the Trade Tax Tribunal, Meerut, vide order dated January 29, 2000.

(3.) I have heard Shri Kunwar Saxena, learned counsel appearing for the applicant and Shri S.D. Singh, learned Standing Counsel who represents the respondent. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the notices under Section 4-B(6) were issued by the assessing officer in the month of March, 1996 and the final order was also passed by him in the same month of March, 1996 when Section 4-B(6) of the Act was not on the statute book having been deleted by U.P. Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1995 (U.P. Act No. 31 of 1995) with effect from May 14, 1994. Thus the proceedings for imposition of penalty under Section 4-B(6) were wholly without authority of law. He pointed out that in the U.P. Act No. 31 of 1995 there was no saving clause in so far as Section 4-B(6) of the Act is concerned. In support of his plea the learned counsel for the applicant relied upon a decision of the honourable Supreme Court in the case of Kolhapur Cane Sugar Works Ltd. v. Union of India reported in (2000) 1 JT SC 453. He strongly relied upon the paragraphs 32, 35, 38, 39 and 41 of the aforesaid judgment of the honourable Supreme Court and submitted that since it did not contain any saving clause for continuance of the proceedings initiated under the rule which was deleted/omitted and there being no provisions in U.P. Act No. 31 of 1995 saving the proceedings initiated in the deleted/omitted provisions, the entire proceedings lapsed.