Commissioner Sales Tax vs Raj Kumar Shravan Kumar Oil & Rice Mills

Dr. Satish Chandra, J.

Heard Sri Sanjeev Shankdhar, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Puneet Chandra, learned counsel for the assessee.

The assessee was engaged in manufacture and sale of mustard oil, rice, oil cake etc. During the assessment years under consideration, the assessee has purchased the oilseeds against Form 3C through the commission agent. The assessee has sold the oil etc. against Form 3B after paying the trade tax at the rate of two per cent, which was applicable at the relevant time. Later, the Deputy Commissioner found that the assessee has not used Form 3C for purchasing the oilseeds from the commission agent, though there was no evasion of the tax. So he after affording opportunity passed an order under Section 10B of the Trade Tax Act, 1948. Being aggrieved, the assessee has challenged the same before the Trade Tax Tribunal, who vide its impugned order dated 17.8.1990 has set aside the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner and restored the orders passed by the Assessing Officer for both the assessment year under consideration. Not being satisfied, the department is in the instant revisions.

With this background, I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and gone through the record.

This is the admitted case of the parties that the assessee was engaged in manufacture and sale of mustard oil, rice, oil cake etc. The purchases were made by the assessee through commission agents and later the goods were sold to third person against Form 3B after paying the tax at the rate of 2% to the exchequer. However, it was found that Form 3C was not properly used. If any, this mistake may be considered merely a technical mistake but there is no loss to the revenue, as the tax was duly paid. When it is so, I do not find any reason to interfere with the Tribunal''s orders.

No substantial question of law emerges.

In the result, both the revisions filed by the department are dismissed.