COMMISSIONER OF TRADE TAX Vs. NERVY LOCK COMPANY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision is directed against the order passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal, Aligarh.

(2.) The dealer-opposite party carried on the business of manufacture and sale of bicycle locks. Its turnover for the assessment year 1990-91 (Central) was accepted by the assessing officer. However, in respect of certain sales the dealer-opposite party claimed concessional rate of tax, at the rate of four per cent on the supposition that it would be filing the requisite form C subsequently. It failed to submit form C in respect of sale of Rs. 21,18,846.32, at the assessment stage. Subsequently, certain forms were filed before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) and the benefit of those forms were extended to it. It is an admitted fact that the dealer-opposite party could not file the requisite number of form C as stated in the returns. Resultantly for certain sales in respect of which the dealer-opposite party initially claimed concessional rate of tax, could not produce form C, consequently tax at the rate of 10 per cent was ultimately levied by the first appellate authority. The dealer-opposite party filed second appeal before the Tribunal and disputed its liability to pay interest on Central sales in respect of which it could not file form C. The Tribunal by the order under revision held that the dealer-opposite party was not liable to pay interest in respect of such sales.

(3.) Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record. The learned Standing Counsel submitted that in view of Section 8 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948, the turnover as disclosed in the account books and the return filed by the dealer was the admitted turnover. The burden to file form C was on the dealer and if a dealer fails to file the requisite form in support of the claim of concessional rate of tax, the tax shall be calculated with reference to the admitted turnover as disclosed in the account books or the returns. The liability to pay tax, therefore, depends on the crucial fact of filing of the requisite form. In absence of requisite forms it cannot be said that the calculation of tax payable was in accordance with the Act. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the dealer-opposite party submitted that there was a bona fide dispute and as such for non-filing of form C which could not be obtained from the purchasing dealer, liability of interest cannot be fastened on the dealer-opposite party.