Allahabad High Court
Nice Chemical vs The Commissioner Of Trade Tax on 24 November, 2006
Author: Rajes Kumar
Bench: Rajes Kumar
JUDGMENT Rajes Kumar, J.
1. These two revisions under Section 11 of U.P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as "Act") relates to the assessment years 2000-01 and 01-02. Trade Tax Revision No. 1029 of 2006 relates to the assessment year 2000-01 arising from the order of Tribunal dated 21.07.2006 in appeal No. 108 of 2005 while Trade Tax Revision No. 1030 of 2006 relates to the assessment year 2001-02 arises from the order of the Tribunal dated 21.07.2006 in appeal No. 238 of 2005.
2. Applicant was carrying on the business of purchases and sales of chemicals. In Trade Tax Revision No. 1029 of 2006, following questions have been raised:
1. Whether the Tribunal was correct to reject the form 3B amounting to Rs. 19,26,313/- in view of the amendment made in Rule 25B(3) of the Rules, specially when the late filing of form 3B is not attributable to the selling dealer but to the purchasing dealer in view of the decision of Star Paper Mills v. CST 2004 UPTC, 317.
2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct to reject those form 3B in view of Section 25B(3) of the Rules which were issued by the assessing officer of the selling dealer himself during the assessment year 2003-04.
3. Whether the Tribunal was correct to reject the form 3B amounting to Rs. 2,36,000/- issued by OM Export since instead of 2000 words 2001 was mentioned and explanation was submitted in this regard.
4. Whether the Tribunal was correct to reject the form 3B issued by M/s Sue Point Agra.
5. Whether the Tribunal was correct not to consider that even on the basis of the amendments made in Rule 25B(3) of the Rules, it is the purchasing dealer who is responsible for issuing form 3B in time and for the mistake of the purchasing dealer, selling dealer can not be taxed.
3. In Trade Tax Revision No. 1030 of 2006, following questions have been raised:
1. Whether on the facts and circumstances, the Tribunal was correct to reject the Form 3B in view of the amendment made in Rule 25B(3) of the Rules specially when the late filing of Form 3B was not attributable to the selling dealer but to the purchasing dealer?
2. Whether the Tribunal was correct to reject Form 3B for the transaction of assessment year 2001-02 after two years in view of the Rule 25B(3) of the Rules which itself was issued by the Trade Tax Department during financial year 2004-05 and as such the applicant can not be liable to pay full tax for late filing of Form 3B?
3. Whether the Tribunal Was correct not to consider that even on the basis of the amendment made in Rule 25B(3) of the Rules, it is the purchasing dealer who is responsible for issuing form 3B in time and for the mistake of the purchasing dealer, selling dealer can not be taxed.
4. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
5. Question Nos. 1, 2 and 5 relating to the assessment year 2000-01 and question Nos. 1, 2 and 3 relating to the assessment year 2001-02 are common. Question Nos. 3 and 4 of Trade Tax Revision No. 1029 of 2006 confines to the assessment year 2000-01 only. It would be appropriate to deal question Nos. 3 and 4 which relates to the assessment year 2000-01 only and, thereafter to deal other questions.
6. During the years under consideration, applicant had sold chemicals to M/s Om Export, Agra for Rs. 2.36 lacs and filed form 3B No. 038306 in respect thereof and claimed the benefit of concessional rate of tax. In Form 3B bill number and value was found correct but the year was wrongly mentioned as 2001 in place of 2000. On enquiry Assistant Commissioner, sector-7, Agra vide letter dated the computer, assessment year 2001-02 was mentioned. Tribunal has rejected the claim of Form 3B on the ground that the certificate from the assessing authority could not be produced for the alleged mistake by M/s Om Exports, Agra.
7. Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that once the certificate of issuing party was submitted, admitting the mistake, the benefit of concessional rate of tax should be allowed. He submitted that no opportunity has been given to the applicant to obtain certificate from the assessing authority.
8. In my opinion, since in the certificate bill number and the value was correctly mentioned and the bill relates to the year under consideration and there is no dispute in this regard inasmuch as M/s Om Exports, Agra in its letter certified mat the Form was issued for the assessment year 2000-01 and by mistake 2001-02 was mentioned, 16.09.2004 informed that in their assessment proceedings M/s Om Export, Agra has disclosed the issue of such form in the assessment year 2001-02 and in the form also assessment year 2001-02 was mentioned and on this ground, the claim of exemption has been refused. In this connection, applicant had submitted a letter issued by M/s Om Exports, Agra in which he has certified the issue of such fonn for the assessment year 2000-01 and admitted that by mistake of the benefit of concessional rate of tax against Form 3B No. 038306 should not be denied. Appropriate action may be taken in this regard against M/s Shoe Points, Agra in accordance with law in case if certificate is found to be false.
9. Regarding question No. 4, applicant claimed to have sold the chemicals for Rs. 1,28,995/- to M/s Shoe Points, Agra and in respect of which Form 3B No. 038004 was furnished, It appears that Assistant Commissioner, Sector-5, Agra vide letter No. 724 dated 15.09.2004 informed that M/s Shoe Points, Agra has shown the issue of Form 3B No. 638004 for Rs. 1,23,995/- and on this basis, the benefit of concessional rate of tax on the differential amount of Rs. 5,000/- has been denied. Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that the bill was for Rs. 1,28,995/- and if inadvertently M/s Shoe Points, Agra in their books had disclosed the amount at Rs. 1,23,995/- applicant can not be held responsible and the benefit of concessional rate of tax on the entire amount of Rs. 1,28,995/- should not be denied, inasmuch as in the Form 3B No. 038004, Rs. 1,28,995/- was mentioned.
10. I find substance in the argument of learned Counsel for the applicant. In the form issued by M/s Shoe Points, Agra the amount at Rs. 1,28,995/- was mentioned and the sale was also for Rs. 1,2,8,995/-, thus, merely because M/s Shoe Points, Agra in their assessment proceeding inadvertently or otherwise has shown to have issued Form 3B No. 038004 for Rs. 1,23,995/-, the benefit of concessional rate of tax on the amount of Rs. 5,000/- can not be denied. Appropriate action may be taken in this regard against M/s Shoe Points, Agra in accordance to law and not against the applicant.
11. Now coming to the main issue involved in both the revisions relating to the question Nos. 1, 2 and 5 of Trade Tax Revision No. 1209 of 2006 and question Nos. 1, 2 and 3 of Trade Tax Revision No. 1030 of2006.
12. For the assessment year 2000-01 and 01-02, the benefit of concessional rate of tax against 5 Form 3B valuing Rs. 16,85,313/- and against 3 Forms 3B for Rs. 1,53,465/- respectively were denied on the ground that forms relates to the transactions beyond the period of two years and as such forms were not admissible in view of Rule 25B(3) of the Rules.
13. Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that the Form 3B submitted by the applicant were genuine forms provided by the purchasing party, obtained from their assessing authority and, thus, there is no reason to deny the exemption. He further submitted that in case, if there is any defect in the form, same is not attributable to the applicant but is attributable to the purchaser and it may be held responsible. He submitted that the liability to issue Form 3B is statutory as held by the Apex Court in the case of Hindustan Vegetable Oils Corporation Ltd. v. Progressive Industries and Ors. reported in 1995 UPTC 1240 (Para 11). Thus, on the basis of the forms provided by the purchasing party in discharge of the statutory' liability, the benefit of concessional rate of tax can not be denied to the applicant. He submitted that as per Rule 25B(6), except in the case the form is declared obsolete or invalid by the Commissioner of Trade Tax under Rule 13 forms should be deemed to be valid and thus, the benefit of concessional rate of tax can not be denied.
14. Learned Standing Counsel submitted that Rule 25-B(3) of the Rules has been introduced by U.P. Trade Tax (Amendment Rules, 2001) to check the evasion of the tax. He submitted that the period of two year for its validity has been fixed with the view that the form should be used within the period in which the assessment may become barred by limitation. He submitted that it was found that often the forms submitted by the dealer were subsequently found to'be forged or not to have been issued to the purchasing dealer by the assessing authority and sometime after obtaining the forms, the dealer closed his business and found to be not-existent and in such a situation it would become difficult to get the verification and the party to whom the forms are issued left untraced. Thus, to meet with this situation Rules 25-B(3) of the Rules has been amended. He submitted that Rule 25-B(3) provides that the forms issued by the Trade Tax Officer in a financial year shall be valid for the transactions of purchase or sale made during that financial year as also made during the two financial years immediately preceding that financial year. Thus, any form, which is issued for the transactions beyond the two financial years would not be a valid form and the benefit of concessional rate of tax on the basis of the said forms, can not be allowed. He submitted that it is the duty of the selling party to receive the valid form from the purchasing party and in case, if the applicant had received the invalid forms from the purchasing party, the benefit of concessional rate of tax can not be allowed on the basis of such forms. He submitted that the aforesaid amended Rule 25-B (3) of the rules has been held valid by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of K.B. Hides v. State of U.P. and Ors., reported in 2004 U.P.T.C., 292 and thus, it is not open to the applicant to argue anything to the contrary. Thus, unless form is found to be in accordance to Rule 25-B(3) of the Rules, the benefit of concessional rate of tax can not be allowed. He submitted that since in the present case for both the assessment years, forms consisted of transactions beyond the period of two years, same were not valid and not in accordance to Rule 25-B(3) of the Rules and thus, the benefit of concessional rate of tax has been rightly disallowed by the authorities below.
15. Having Heard learned Counsel for the parties, I have perused the order of Tribunal and the authorities below.
16. Under Section 4-B of the Act the Legislature has given certain benefit to certain manufacturers for payment of concessional rate of tax or exemption of tax on purchases of certain goods. Clause (b) of Section 4-B(1) of the Act reads as follows:
Where any goods liable to tax under any other provision of this Act are sold by a dealer to another dealer and such other dealer furnishes to the selling dealer in prescribed form and manner a certificate to the effect that he holds a recognition certificate issued under Sub-section (2) in respect thereof, the selling dealer shall be liable in respect of those goods to tax at such concessional rates or to wholly or partly exempt from tax, whether unconditionally or subject to the conditions and restrictions specified in that behalf as may be notified in the Gazette by the State Government in that behalf.
17. The procedure to implement the scheme contained in Section 4-B is that the purchasing dealer has to issue to the selling dealer a declaration stating the fact that it is entitled to make purchases either exempt from tax or at a concessional rate of tax. The Assessing Authority of the selling dealer has then to be satisfied that such declaration form is genuine, duly filled and in accordance to Rule. Such satisfaction has to be reached upon examination and verification of such declaration forms obtained from the purchasing dealer and submitted to the authority.
18. Rule 25B(1), (2) and (3) of the Rules read as follows:
Rule 25-B. Authority from which Declaration Forms may be obtained; use, custody and maintenance of records of such Forms and matters incidental thereto.
(1) Where a dealer holding a recognition certificate purchases any goods referred to in Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 4-B, for use as raw material for the purpose of manufacture of any notified goods, he shall, if he wishes to avail of the concession referred to therein, furnish to the selling dealer a certificate in Form III-B (hereinafter called a "Declaration Form").
(2) A dealer holding a recognition certificate who wishes to avail of the concession referred to in Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 4-B, shall apply to the Assessing Authority within whose jurisdiction his principal place of business is situated for the issue of blank declaration forms. No blank declaration form shall be issued by the Assessing Authority except on 19. payment of fee by the dealer at the rate of rupee one per form. The application shall be signed by one of the persons mentioned in Sub-rule (1) of Rule 25-A. (3) If the Trade Tax Officer is satisfied that the demand of the dealer for blank declaration forms referred in Sub-rule (1) is genuine and reasonable, he may issue such number of forms as he deems fit. If the fee paid is more than the fee payable for the number of forms issued, the balance shall be kept in the account of the dealer to be adjusted against future issues of forms to the dealer. A form issued by the Trade Tax Officer in a financial year shall be valid for the transactions of purchase or sale made during that financial year as also made during two financial years immediately preceding that financial year:
Provided that the form issued by the Trade Tax Officer before the commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax (Amendment) Rules, 2001 shall be valid for transactions of purchase or sale made during the Financial Year 2001-02 or any other financial year before such commencement:
Provided further that the form issued by the Trade Tax Officer within six months after such commencement shall also be valid for transaction of purchase or sale made during any financial year before such commencement, if on such form the issuing Trade Tax Officer certifies the validity of transaction of purchase or sale mentioned therein.
19. The validity of Rule 25B(3) of the Rule was challenged before the Division Bench of this Court in the case of K.B. Hides v. State of U.P. and Ors. (Supra). Division Bench of this Court has considered the aims and object for introducing the amendment and 21. upheld the validity of the Rule. Division Bench of this Court held as follows:
It is in pursuance of this resolution of the U.P. Cabinet that Rules 12-A, 12-B, 12-C and 25-B of the U.P. Trade Tax Rules were amended after following the due process. These amendments were made for checking evasion of trade tax and misuse of forms. The amendments were made in the rules in exercise of powers conferred by Section 24 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act and it is alleged that these amendments are valid.
Thus, it is evident from this background that the impugned amendments were made to prevent tax evasion by misuse of the statutory forms. It is evident that these amendments were made after the matter was considered by the concerned authorities including the Commissioner, Trade Tax, Finance Secretary, Finance Minister and the Cabinet, and it is not that they were made without due application of mind.
It would be useful to once again see the background in which the impugned amendment was made to the rules. This background has been mentioned in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the supplementary counter affidavit filed by the Department. In paragraph 3 it is clearly stated that the statutory forms were being misused by the dealers as there was no time period for which they could be obtained. There was difficulty in verifying the genuineness of the forms obtained a long time back.
It was further mentioned that the Cabinet considered the note of the Finance Department and in its meeting dated 15th January, 2001 it was resolved that there was great misuse of the statutory forms by the dealers and hence it became necessary to amend the rules to stop this misuse.
Learned Counsel for the Department submitted that often the forms submitted by the dealers were subsequently found to be forged or not to have been issued to the purchasing dealer by the Assessing Authority. Sometimes there was theft of these forms from the Department, and sometimes after obtaining the form the dealer closed his business and remained non-existent and sold the forms to some other person who misused the same. In this way the revenue was losing a large amount of tax. The selling dealer claimed exemption on the basis of such forms and such claim cannot be denied in view of the decisions of the Supreme Court in Chunni Lal Parshadi Lal v. Commissioner of Sales Tax 1986 U.P.T.C. 747; Bhart Iron Stores v. Commissioner of Sales Tax 1994 U.P.T.C. 130; Indra Steels Private Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax 1995 U.P.T.C. 4. Sometimes when the purchasing dealer was caught he conveniently denied the purchase or issue of Form 3-A on the ground that the same had not been issued to him at all Sometimes the purchasing dealer was not traceable or non-existent There was also often collusion between the seller and purchaser. The result was that after the lapse of a lot of time it became difficult for the Department to verify the genuineness of the forms with reference to the party who had issued it and the entries of transaction in the books of accounts of such party. Learned Departmental Counsel has therefore submitted that it is for this reason that the impugned amendments to the rules were made.
In our opinion there is nothing unreasonable or arbitrary if the validity of a form is fixed for a certain period because if a form is made valid for an indefinite period it may become liable to be misused since after a lapse of a long time the related transaction cannot be verified. In our opinion the impugned amendment to the rules only imposes reasonable restrictions to avoid misuse of the form and tax evasion.
Filing of the form for claiming exemption has been held to be mandatory by the Supreme Court in Commission of Sales Tax v. Prabhu Dayal Prem Narain 1988 U.P.T.C. 1204 and by this Court in S. Govind Ram Tansukh Rai & Co. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax 1985 U.P.T.C. 1060.
We see no illegality in the impugned rules as in opinion they have been made with the object of preventing tax evasion. The right to do business in Article 19(1)(g) is subject to reasonable restrictions vide Hathisingh Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Union of India and in our opinion the restrictions imposed by the impugned rules are clearly reasonable as they aim at preventing tax evasion. No Government can run without taxes. As held by the Supreme Court in Asst Collector of Central Excise v. Dunlop India Ltd, the Government cannot run on bank guarantees.
No doubt some dealers may suffer some hardship by the impugned rules, but it is well settled that equity has no place in taxing laws vide Commissioner of Income Tax v. Fir, Muar ; Commissioner of Income TaX v. M.P. Jatia ; D.D. Joshi v. Union of India ; Commissioner of Income Tax v. Ajay Products Ltd.
; Banarasi Debt v. Income Tax Officer ; Agra City Real Estate Development Organization v. State of U.P. 2003 (3) U.P.L.B.E.C. 2201, etc. As is said "Dura lex sedled" which means the law is hard, but it is the law."
It is well settled that a statutory rule cannot be said to be unreasonable merely because in a given case it operates harshly vide State of Gujarat v. Shantilal (Vide paragraph 52.) Hence even if some dealers suffer by the impugned rules that would not make the rules invalid. We see no illegality in the impugned amendment to the Rules or in the impugned order dated 14th August, 2002 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition).
20. It may be mentioned here that for the claim of benefit of exemption or the benefit of concessional rate of tax filing of the form is held mandatory by the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Prabhudayal Prem Narain, reported in 1988 UPTC, 1204
21. In the matter of Commissioner of Sales Tax, Delhi v. Delhi Automobiles (P.) Ltd., reported in 48 STC 333, the Delhi High Court held that the production of a declaration form is a condition precedent for the availability of the concession. The Bench has also observed that these provisions are intended as a measure of safeguard against possible mis-utilisation of the forms and also to ensure that relief is not obtained by more than one selling dealer in respect of the same declaration form by using the various parts of it differently.
22. Against the decision in Commissioner of Sales Tax, Delhi v. Delhi Automobiles (P.) Ltd., (supra) of the High Court of Delhi, Delhi Automobiles (P) Ltd. preferred an appeal before the Apex Court-Delhi Automobiles (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Delhi which was dismissed. Court have observed in para 7 as under:
In our view, in the first place, the assessee had not done all that it could; it could, and should, have preferred an appeal against the order of the learned single judge and persisted in his application for obtaining the Official Liquidator duplicates of the 'C' Form declarations, as required by Rule 12(3). Since it did not, in the face of the clear language of the rule, its case can hardly be said to be a hard case. The judgment cited by the learned Counsel has no application because that was a case where the language of the statute was found to be ambiguous. The language of the provision here is clear and was rightly applied by the High Court.
23. In the case of India Agencies (Regd) Bangalore v. Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bangalore , Apex Court upheld the denial of benefit of concessional rate of tax on the basis of 'copy of Form C' marked as 'duplicate'. Apex Court held that benefit of concessional rate of tax can be allowed only on furnishing of original 'copy of Fonn C' as required under the Rule 12(1) of the Central Sales Tax Rules and Rule 6(ii) of CST (Karnataka) Rule.
24. Apex Court held as follows:
10. We are of the view that the Rule 6(b)(ii) of the Central Sales Tax (Karnataka) Rules, 1957 which provides for furnishing of the original C-Form in order to claim the concessional rate of tax consistent with the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act and there is no conflict between the provisions of Rule 12(2) AND (3) OF THE Central Sales Tax Rules and Rule 6(b)(ii) of the Central Sales Tax (Karnataka) Rules, 1957 as contended by the appellant Rule 12 of the Rules is intended to prevent misuse of C-Forms by unscrupulous and mischievous dealers and makes it obligatory for the dealer to furnish indemnity bond. In other words, in order to claim concessional rate of tax, the original C-Form has to be attached to the return as provided under Rule 6(b)(ii) of the Central Sales Tax (Karnataka) Rules, 1957. It is not a mere formality or technicality but it is intended to achieve the object of preventing the forms being mis-used for the commission of fraud and collision with a view to evade payment of taxes. In our opinion, Rule 6(b)(ii) which is clear and categoric cannot be liberally construed but it should be construed strictly. We, therefore, hold that without producing the original of the C-Form as prescribed under Rule 6(b)(ii) of the Rules the appellant is not entitled for concessional rate of tax under Sub-section (4) of Section 8 of the Act
21. The learned senior counsel for the appellant submitted that there is no suggestion anywhere that there is anything wrong with the genuineness of the transaction or any doubts as to the possession by the purchasing dealer on (off) a certificate enabling the sellers to obtain the concessional rate of tax under Section 8 of the Act Under such circumstances, the authorities should not have taken the strict view in rejecting the claim of the concessional rate of tax. At first sight, the argument of the learned Counsel for the appellate appears to be genuine and acceptable but considering the mandatory nature of the provisions of the Act and Rules, this Court is called upon to decide the questions involved in this case. The provisions being mandatory they should have been complied with. The appellant made no attempt to comply with Rule 12(3) till after his claim was rejected by the Assessing Authority. Having made no attempt to comply with the mandatory provisions, he disentitled himself from getting the concessional rate. Even otherwise, in our view, it is a pure question of law as to the proper interpretation of the provisions of Section 8 of the Central Sales Tax Act and the provisions of Rule 12 of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957 and Rule 6(b)(ii) of the Central Sales Tax (Karnataka) Rules, 1957. In view of the decision of this Court in the case of Kedarnath Jute Manufacturing Co. (supra) and of the decision in Delhi Automobiles (P) Ltd. (supra), it is clear that these provisions have to be strictly construed and that unless there is strict compliance with the provisions of the statute, the assessee was not entitled to the concessional rate of tax.
25. In the case of India Agencies (Regd) Bangalore v. Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bangalore (Supra), Apex Court held that the aforesaid provisions have to be strictly construed and unless there is strict compliance with the provisions of the statute, the assessee was not entitled to the concessional rate of tax. Apex Court also observed that the above provisions are of mandatory nature and should have been complied with.
26. Rule 25-B(3) of the Rules clearly states that the form issued by the Trade Tax Officer in financial year shall be valid for the transaction of the purchases or sales made during that financial year as also made during the two financial years immediately preceding the financial year. Thus, any form, which contains the transactions beyond the period of two preceding financial years shall not be valid form for the purposes of those transactions. Under Rule 25-B(3) of Rule blank declaration forms is being issued by the Trade Tax Officer to the party concerned, which is required to be furnished after filling the same and on the basis of which the benefit of concessional rate of tax is being claimed in accordance to the Rule. If it is not a valid form in accordance to the Rule, the benefit of concessional rate of tax can not be allowed. No doubt, the purchasing dealer should issue a valid form to the selling dealer in discharge of his obligation but at the same time the selling dealer should also accept only valid forms in accordance to the Rules from the purchasing dealer. It may be mentioned here that while amending Rule 25 B(3) of the Rules Legislature has taken due care in respect of the old transactions and added two proviso. Proviso 1 to Rule 25-B(3) provides that the form issued by the Trade Tax Officer before commencement of U.P. Trade Tax Act (Amendment) Rules, 2001 shall also be valid for the transaction of purchase of sales made during the financial year 2001-02 or in any other financial year before such commencement. Second Proviso further provides that the form issued by the Trade Tax Officer within six months after such commencement shall also be valid for the transaction of purchase or sales made during any financial year before such commencement if on such forms issuing Trade Tax Officer certifies the validity of the transaction of purchase or sales mentioned therein. Thus, in respect of the transactions in dispute, the form should be obtained within six months from the date of the commencement of the amendment with an endorsement by the Trade Tax Officer but it appears that the forms in respect of the impugned transactions have not been sought for, by the purchasing dealer from its assessing authority. It also appears that after the commencement of the amendment, the applicant has also not made any effort, pursuing the purchasing dealer to obtain the form within six months from date of the commencement of the amendment under the Second Proviso in respect of the impugned transactions.
27. Thus, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the law referred hereinabove applicant has rightly not been allowed the benefit against the impugned forms, which were not valid forms for the transactions in dispute, in view of Rule 25B(3) of the Rules. In alternate, learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that the purchasing dealer may be directed to pay the tax and the interest inasmuch as it could not issue the valid form while it was statutory obligation on its part to issue the valid form. I afraid that any such direction can be issued in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. It is open to the applicant to seek the remedy in this regard elsewhere. Learned Counsel for the applicant during the course of the argument has submitted that the applicant is not liable for any tax under Section 8(1) of the Act on the amount of fax levied on account of the rejection of claim of the benefit of concessional rate of tax against the impugned from in view of the Rules 25B(3) of the Rules, inasmuch as the applicant has not admitted any liability of tax at any stage and has acted bonafidely. I decline to consider the submission of learned Counsel for the applicant on the ground that the issue relating to the interest is not arising from the order of the Tribunal and no question has been raised in the revision petition.
28. In the result, revision No. 1029 of 2006 is allowed in part. Tribunal is directed to pass appropriate order under Section 11(8) of the Act. Trade Tax Revision No. 1030 of 2006 fails and is accordingly, dismissed.