U. P. POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LTD. v. COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAX
2018-01-08
ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA
body2018
DigiLaw.ai
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra, J.—U.P. Power Transmission Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as “UPPTCL”), 765 KV Transmission Division, Dahi Chowki, Unnao, has filed instant Commercial Tax Revision No. 269 of 2017, assailing the order passed by the Commercial Tax Tribunal, Bench-4, Kanpur, in second appeal No. 154 of 2015. Proceedings pertained to assessment year 2010-11. The Tribunal vide its order under challenge has rejected UPPTCL’s second appeal and thereby affirmed the denial of Form ‘C’, vide order dated 30.1.2013, as affirmed in appeal on 2.7.2015. Plea of the revisionist, a registered dealer, that by virtue of certificate of registration granted to it in Form ‘B’ it is entitled to purchase of goods on concessional rate of tax has been turned down. Orders challenged in the Commercial Tax Revision are also the subject-matter of challenge in Writ Tax No. 762 of 2017, filed by M/s CG Power and Industrial Solutions Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Writ Petitioner’). Writ Petitioner was awarded contract by UPPTCL for construction of 765 KV sub-station, on turn key basis, as part of its Power Transmission Infrastructure. A declaration is sought in the writ petition that UPPTCL is entitled to be issued Form ‘C’ for the financial year 2010-11 to 2016-17, for the purchases to be effected for the contract work specified in Form ‘B’ at Unnao and Sirathu. An alternative prayer is also made to direct the UPPTCL to pay differential amount of tax, together with interest, in case it is found not entitled to Form ‘C’. 2. The Writ Petition (Tax) No. 762 of 2017 has been connected with Commercial Tax Revision No. 269 of 2017, vide order passed in revision on 15.11.2017. Both the matters are therefore listed together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 3. UPPTCL is an undertaking of the State of U.P. and is engaged in transmission of Power from the place of its generation to the distribution unit. The task of transmission is carried out by the UPPTCL across the State of U.P. by laying high voltage transmission lines, which are then stepped down by the local transformers (sub-stations) to supply power to the end consumer through distribution agency. For such purposes it engages contractors and sub-contractors. UPPTCL is a dealer registered under Section 2(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as “Act of 1956”).
For such purposes it engages contractors and sub-contractors. UPPTCL is a dealer registered under Section 2(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as “Act of 1956”). It moved an application under Form ‘A’ of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as “Rules of 1957”) specifying its business as also the goods or classes of goods that are to be purchased by it in the course of interstate trade or commerce, for its Power Transmission. A certificate of registration in Form ‘B’ has been issued to UPPTCL. The registration certificate specifies goods that are to be purchased for use in manufacture or processing of goods for sale and for use in generation or distribution of electricity or any other form of power on concessional tax under Section 8(4) of the Act of 1956. The certificate of registration issued in Form ‘B’ is extracted for the facility of reference : “(Form B) [See Rule 5 (1)] Registration Certificate [u/s 7(2)] No. _______________ (Central) It is certified that M/s. Vidyut 765 KV Transmission Center UP Power Transmission Corporation Ltd., Dahi Chowki, Unnao, which runs business mainly at ............... in Uttar Pradesh has been registered under Section 7(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1950 as a Dealer. Business is as under- : Power Transmission The class(es) of goods specified for the purposes of sub-sections (1) and (3) of Section 8 of the said Act is/are as follows and the sales of those goods in the course of inter-state trade to the dealer shall be taxable at the rate specified in that sub-section subject to the provisions of sub-section (4) of the said section: (a) for resale; XXX (b) for use in the manufacture or processing of goods for sale - Equipments for construction of Electrical Power House, parts and material, Electrical Material Equipment, Transformer, Apparatus and Parts only. (c) for use in mining; XXX (d) for use in the generation or distribution of electricity or any other form of power. Electrical material equipments, parts and apparatus, transformer and transformer oil only. (e) for use in the packing of goods for sale/resale. XXX The dealer manufactures, processes, or extracts in mining, the following classes of goods or generates or distributes the following form of power, namely: (A) 765 KV Electric Sub-station for the work of electricity transmission.
Electrical material equipments, parts and apparatus, transformer and transformer oil only. (e) for use in the packing of goods for sale/resale. XXX The dealer manufactures, processes, or extracts in mining, the following classes of goods or generates or distributes the following form of power, namely: (A) 765 KV Electric Sub-station for the work of electricity transmission. The dealers’ year for the purpose of accounts runs from April to March The dealer has no additional place of business/has additional place(s) of business as stated below: (a) In Uttar Pradesh - DahiChowki, Unnao (b) In other States - XX The dealer keeps warehouses at the following places within the State of registration: (1) DahiChowki Unnao This certificate will be valid w.e.f. 27.10.10 until its cancelled. Sd/- Dr. A.K. Kanaujia Assistant Commissioner Commercial Tax Ward- 2 Unnao Dated: 27.10.10" 4. The UPPTCL entered into different contracts with the Writ Petitioner M/s CG Power and Industrial Solutions Limited for construction of 765 KV sub-station on turn-key basis which included supply of raw materials, processing materials, equipment, machinery, plant, tools, stores, spare parts etc. Such inter-state purchases are required to be made vide requisite declaration forms. It appears that different contracts have been awarded by UPPTCL to the writ petitioner for which inter-state sales were made. UPPTCL applied for issuance of Form ‘C’ for the purpose. While such Form ‘C’ was issued for six other contracts awarded within the State of U.P. itself, yet, the concerned authorities denied Form ‘C’ in respect of commissioning of sub-stations at Unnao and Sirathu. A specific order in that regard came to be passed on 30.1.2013.
UPPTCL applied for issuance of Form ‘C’ for the purpose. While such Form ‘C’ was issued for six other contracts awarded within the State of U.P. itself, yet, the concerned authorities denied Form ‘C’ in respect of commissioning of sub-stations at Unnao and Sirathu. A specific order in that regard came to be passed on 30.1.2013. Following reasons have been assigned in it for denial of form: ^^O;kikjh ds }kjk ÁLrqr fyf[kr mRrj ij fopkj fd;k x;kA i=koyh ds voyksdu ij ik;k x;k fd vkids }kjk Hkjh ek=k esa QkeZ&38 ds ek/;e ls vk;kr fd;k x;k gS ysfdu mldh dksbZ iqu% fcØh ugha fn[kk;h x;h gSA fMLVªhO;w'ku dk dk;Z Hkh ugha fd;k tkrk gSA vkids }kjk ÁkUrh; ,oa dsUnzh; iath;u iw.kZr% ikoj VªkUlfe'ku ds fy, ÁkIr fd;k x;k gSA QkeZ lh ÁkIr djus gsrq vkosnu drkZ ,d ljdkjh fuxe gS ftlds }kjk ikoj ls fo/kqr ÁkIr djds gkbZ oksYVst dks yks oksYVst djds fo/kqr lcLVs'ku dks fn;k tkrk gSA ftlds fy, mlesa Á;qDr gksus okyh e'khujh@lkexzh muds }kjk ÁkUr ckgj ls vk;kr dh tkrh gSA tkap ij ik;k x;k fd O;kikjh u rks fuekZrk gS u gh VªsMj gh Js.kh esa vkrs gSa vkSj u gh dsUnzh; vf/kfu;e esa ;FkkifjHkkf"kr Mhyj dh Js.kh esa gh vkrs gSaA fo/kqr VªkUlfe'ku IykUV@ykbZuksa ds fuekZ.k esa Á;qDr lezkxh vFkok vuqj{k.k dk;Z gsrq QkeZ&lh tkjh fd;k tkuk fof/kd :i ls mfpr ughs gSA** The assessing authority held that the UPPTCL is neither a manufacturer nor is a trader, and as such, is not covered within the definition of ‘dealer’ under the Act of 1956. The definition of ‘dealer’ under Section 2(b), provision contained under Section 8(3)(b) as well as rule 13 of 1957 Rules has been referred to in order to hold that the claim for issuance of Form ‘C’ is not covered under the rules.
The definition of ‘dealer’ under Section 2(b), provision contained under Section 8(3)(b) as well as rule 13 of 1957 Rules has been referred to in order to hold that the claim for issuance of Form ‘C’ is not covered under the rules. The assessing authority ultimately concluded as under: ^^mi;qDr O;k[;k ls Li"V gS fd ikoj tujs'ku] ikoj Vªklfe'ku ,oa ikoj fMLVªO;w'ku i`Fkd&i`Fkd LVst gSA dsUnzh; vf/kfu;e ds fu;e 13 esa bysfDVªflVh tujs'ku ,oa fMLVªC;w'ku dk mYys[k gS] VªkUlfe'ku dk ugha] tcfd vkius }kjk dsoy bysfDVªflVh VªkUlfe'ku dk dk;Z fd;k tkrk gS] ftlds fy;s dsUnzh; vfèkfu;e esa dksbZ O;oLFkk ugha nh gSA O;kikjh dsUnzh; vf/kfu;e esa ifjHkkf"kr Mhyj dh Js.kh esa ugha vkrs gSaA ,slh fLFkfr esa QkeZ&lh ds fo:) fj;k;rh nj ls eky dk vk;kr djus dh vuqefr fn;k tkuk U;k; laxr ugha gSA vr% QkeZ&lh ÁkIr djus gsrq fn;k x;k ÁkFkZuk i= vLohdkj fd;k tkrk gSA vkns'k dh Áfr O;kikjh dks lwpukFkZ Hkstk tk;A** 5. Revisionist as well as writ petitioner are both registered dealers within the meaning of Section 2(b) of the Act of 1956. According to the revisionist it is entitled to purchase of raw materials/equipments for erecting its transmission infrastructure against Form ‘C’ at concessional rate of tax. It is contended that purchases of goods specified in Form ‘B’, upon which concessional tax under Section 8(4) is leviable, would have to be made vide Form ‘C’ or else the revisionist would have to pay normal rate of tax which would violate Section 9-A of the 1956 Act. 6. Since Form ‘C’ has not been issued to UPPTCL, the required declaration in terms of the Act of 1956 and the Rules of 1957 have not been made available to the writ petitioner, either. Proceedings have been initiated by the respective tax authorities of the State of Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra, from where goods are brought in U.P. for fulfilling obligations under the contract for realizing normal rate of tax. The writ petitioner has been contesting such proceedings on the ground that only concessional rate of tax is payable on such inter-state sales made in Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh. It is otherwise claimed by the writ petitioner that in the event UPPTCL is not found entitled to issuance of Form ‘C’ for inter-state sales, then such higher rate of tax is liable to be reimbursed to it by UPPTCL.
It is otherwise claimed by the writ petitioner that in the event UPPTCL is not found entitled to issuance of Form ‘C’ for inter-state sales, then such higher rate of tax is liable to be reimbursed to it by UPPTCL. A prayer in the alternative is also made in that regard in the writ petition. 7. A counter-affidavit has been filed by the State in the writ petition, contending that the work of transmission of electricity is not covered within the term ‘generation or distribution of electricity’ and that the claim raised is not covered under Section 8(3)(b) of the Act of 1956. It is also contended in para 18 of the counter-affidavit that dealer holding Form ‘B’ would not be entitled to inter-state purchase of goods on concessional rate of tax and that denial of certificate in Form ‘C’ is valid. The argument, in substance, is that Form ‘C’ can be issued only if a dealer undertakes the work of generation and distribution of electricity and not if it undertakes work of transmission, notwithstanding certificate of registration issued in Form ‘B’ as per which concessional tax is leviable. The stand taken in the counter-affidavit virtually questions the issuance of Form ‘B’ to the UPPTCL insofar as concessional tax under Section 8(4) is held leviable for the goods specified in the form. The stand taken in the counter-affidavit filed in writ petition is followed and reiterated by Sri A.C. Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel, in the revision as well. 8. Sri Kavin Gulati, learned senior counsel appearing for the writ petitioner has placed the statutory scheme under the Act of 1956, as well as Rules of 1957, in order to contend that once Form ‘B’ has been issued to a dealer registered under the Act of 1956, the inter-state sales of goods and materials specified therein would attract levy of tax at concessional rate under Section 8(4) and the authorities are obliged to issue Form ‘C’ for the purpose. It is also stated that so long as the Form ‘B’ subsists and is not cancelled, for which only limited grounds otherwise exist and are not attracted otherwise in this case, the authorities cannot go behind the declarations made in Form ‘B’ while issuing Form ‘C’.
It is also stated that so long as the Form ‘B’ subsists and is not cancelled, for which only limited grounds otherwise exist and are not attracted otherwise in this case, the authorities cannot go behind the declarations made in Form ‘B’ while issuing Form ‘C’. It is contended that it would be at the stage of final assessment that the authorities may at best examine as to whether Form ‘C’ were required for the purposes specified in Form ‘B’ and that such an equiry would be impermissible at the stage of issuance of Form ‘C’. Submission is that authorities as well as the tribunal have misconstrued the statutory scheme and thereby have committed manifest error in law. The argument of Sri Gulati has been substantially adopted by Sri Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the UPPTCL. Learned counsels have also referred to various decisions in support of their submissions, which shall be dealt with later. 9. Per contra, Sri A.C. Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel contends that the certificate issued in Form ‘B’ cannot travel beyond provisions contained under Section 8(3)(b) of the Act of 1956, and the authorities as well as tribunal have taken a correct view in the matter. 10. Following question of law has been framed for consideration in the revision filed by UPPTCL : “Whether the tribunal has committed a manifest error in law in upholding the denial of Form ‘C’, for electricity transmission to the revisionist, notwithstanding the fact that the registration certificate of the revisionist under the Central Sales Tax Act was and continues to be, specifically for “power transmission”? 11. Before adverting to the question framed it would be appropriate to take note of the relevant provisions contained in the Act of 1956 as well as Rules of 1957. Act of 1956 was enacted to provide principles for determining sale or purchase of goods in inter-state trade or commerce and for providing levy or collection of tax on such inter-state trade or commerce or in course of import into or export from India. Section 2(b) defines dealer in following words : “2(b).
Act of 1956 was enacted to provide principles for determining sale or purchase of goods in inter-state trade or commerce and for providing levy or collection of tax on such inter-state trade or commerce or in course of import into or export from India. Section 2(b) defines dealer in following words : “2(b). “Dealer” means any person who carries on (whether regularly or otherwise) the business of buying, selling, supplying or distributing goods, directly or indirectly, for cash or for deferred payment, or for commission remuneration or other valuable consideration, and includes- (i) A local authority, a body corporate, a company, any co-operative society or other society, club, firm, Hindu undivided family or other association of persons which carries on such business; (ii) A factor, broker, commission agent, delcredere agent, or any other mercantile agent, by whatever name called, and whether of the same description as hereinbefore mentioned or not, who carries on the business of buying, selling, supplying or distributing, goods belonging to any principal whether disclosed or not; and (iii) An auctioneer who carries on the business of selling, or auctioning goods belonging to any principal, whether disclosed or not and whether the offer of the intending purchaser is accepted by him or by the principal or a nominee of the principal. Explanation 1—Every person who acts as an agent, in any State, of a dealer residing outside that State and buys, sells, supplies, or distributes, goods in the State or acts on behalf of such dealer as- (i) A mercantile agent as defined in the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 (3 of 1930) or (ii) An agent for handling of goods or documents of title relating to goods, of (iii) An agent for the collection or the payment of the sale price of goods or as a guarantor for such collection or payment, and every local branch or office in a State of a firm registered outside that State or a company or other body corporate, the principal office or headquarters whereof is outside that State, shall be deemed to be a dealer for the purposes of this Act.
Explanation 2—A Government which, whether or not in the course of business, buys, sells, supplies or distributes, goods, directly or otherwise, for cash or for deferred payment or for commission, remuneration or other valuable consideration, shall except in relation to any sale, supply or distribution of surplus, unserviceable or old stores or materials or waste products or obsolete or discarded machinery or parts or accessories thereof, be deemed to be a dealer for the purposes of this Act;]” 12. As per Section 2(f), a ‘registered dealer’ means a dealer who is registered under Section 7 of the Act of 1956. Section 7 provides for registration of dealer. An application for the purpose is required to be made to the authority referred to in sub-section (1) of Section 7. Section 7(1) and (2) are reproduced : “7. Registration dealers.—(l) Every dealer liable to pay tax under this Act shall, within such time as may be prescribed for the purpose, make an application for registration under this Act to such authority in the appropriate State as the Central Government may, by general or special order, specify and every such application shall contain such particulars as may be prescribed. (2) Any dealer liable to pay tax under the sales tax law of the appropriate State, or where there is no such law in force in the appropriate State or any part thereof, any dealer having a place of business in that State or part, as the case may be, may. notwithstanding that he is not liable to pay tax under this Act, apply for registration under this Act to the authority referred to in sub-section (1), and every such application shall contain such particulars as may be prescribed.” 13. Rules of 1957 contain detailed procedure for making of application for registration under Section 7 of the Act of 1956. Rule 3 of 1957 Rules is relevant and is reproduced : “3.
Rules of 1957 contain detailed procedure for making of application for registration under Section 7 of the Act of 1956. Rule 3 of 1957 Rules is relevant and is reproduced : “3. Certificate of registration.— (1) An application for registration under Section 7 shall be made by a dealer to the notified authority in Form ‘A’ and shall be— (a) signed by the proprietor of the business, or, in the case of a firm, by one of its partners, or, in the case of a Hindu undivided family, by the karta or manager of the family, or, in the case of a company by a director, managing agent or principal officer thereof, or, in the case of a Government, by an officer duly authorised by that Government, or, in the case of any other association of individuals by the principal officer managing the business, and (b) verified in the manner provided in the said Form ‘A’. (2) Where a dealer has more than one place of business within a State, he shall make a single application in respect of all such places, name in such application one of such places as the principal place of business for the purposes of these rules and submit such application to the notified authority specified in respect of the principal place of business so named: Provided that any place so named shall not in any case be different from the place, if any, declared by him to be the principal place of business, by whatever name called, under the general sales tax law of the State.” 14. It would be appropriate at this stage to take note of Form ‘A’ inasmuch as it contemplates disclosure by the applicant of its business and also the goods or classes of goods that are required to be purchased by the dealer in the course of inter-state trade or commerce. Clause 16 of Form ‘A’ which is referable to rule 3 and Section 7(1) and (2) of the Act of 1956 is reproduced : “(16) The following goods or classes of goods are purchased by the dealer in the course of inter-state trade or commerce for - (a) resale.................... (b) use in the manufacture or processing of goods for sale................ (c) use in mining.................. (d) use in the generation or distribution of electricity or any other form of power; (e) used in the packing of goods for sale/resale.
(b) use in the manufacture or processing of goods for sale................ (c) use in mining.................. (d) use in the generation or distribution of electricity or any other form of power; (e) used in the packing of goods for sale/resale. 15. Rule 5 of the Rules of 1957 then provides for necessary satisfaction to be arrived at, by the notified authority, after making such enquiry as it thinks necessary, with regard to correctness of the particulars contained in the application, as also deposit of fee, referred to in sub-rule (3) of rule 4. It is thereafter that the dealer shall be registered and a certificate in Form ‘B’ would be issued. Rule 5 of the Rules of 1957 is also reproduced : “5. (1) When the notified authority is satisfied, after making such enquiry as it thinks necessary, that the particulars contained in the application are correct and complete 1[and the fee referred to in sub-rule (3) of rule 4 has been paid], it shall register the dealer and grant him a certificate of registration in Form ‘’B’ and also a copy of such certificate for every place of business within the State other than the principal place of business mentioned therein. (2) When the said authority is not satisfied that the particulars contained in the application are correct and complete, or where the fee referred to in sub-rule (3) of rule 4 has not been paid, he shall reject the application for reasons to be recorded in writing: Provided that before the application is rejected, the applicant shall be given an opportunity of being heard in the matter and, as the case may be, or correcting and completing the said particulars or complying with the requirements of sub-rule (3) of rule 4.” 16. Section 8 of the Act provides for the rate of tax on sales in course of inter-state trade or commerce. By virtue of sub-section (1) of Section 8, every dealer in the course of inter-state trade or commerce sells to a registered dealer goods of the description referred to in sub-section (3) shall be liable to pay concessional tax @ 2%.
By virtue of sub-section (1) of Section 8, every dealer in the course of inter-state trade or commerce sells to a registered dealer goods of the description referred to in sub-section (3) shall be liable to pay concessional tax @ 2%. However, by virtue of sub-section (4) the provisions of sub-section (1) is to apply only if the dealer selling the goods furnishes to the prescribed authority, in the prescribed manner, a declaration duly filled and signed by the registered dealer to whom the goods are sold containing the prescribed particulars in a prescribed form obtained from the prescribed authority. Section 8(1), (2), (3) and (4) of the Act of 1956 are reproduced : “8. Rates of tax on sales in the course of inter-State trade or commerce.—(1) Every dealer, who in the course of inter-State trade or commerce sells to a registered dealer goods of the description referred to in sub-section (3), shall be liable to pay tax under this Act, which shall be one per cent of his turnover or at the rate applicable to the sale or purchase of such goods inside the appropriate State under the sales tax law of that State, whichever is lower: Provided that the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, reduce the rate of tax under this sub-section. (2) The tax payable by any dealer on his turnover in so far as the turnover or any part thereof relates to the sale of goods in the course of inter-state trade or commerce not falling within sub-section (1), shall be at the rate applicable to the sale or purchase of such goods inside the appropriate State under the sales tax law of that State. Explanation.—For the purposes of this sub-section, a dealer shall be deemed to be a dealer liable to pay tax under the sales tax law of the appropriate State, notwithstanding that he, in fact, may not be so liable under that law.
Explanation.—For the purposes of this sub-section, a dealer shall be deemed to be a dealer liable to pay tax under the sales tax law of the appropriate State, notwithstanding that he, in fact, may not be so liable under that law. (3) The goods referred to in sub-section (1) - (a) [****] (b) [****] are goods of the class or classes specified in the certificate of registration of the registered dealer purchasing the goods as being intended for resale by him or subject to any rules made by the Central Government in this behalf, for use by him in the manufacture or processing of goods for sale or [in the telecommunications network or] in mining or in the generation or distribution of electricity or any other form of power; (c) are containers or other materials specified in the certificate of registration of the registered dealer purchasing the goods, being containers or materials intended for being used for the packing of goods for sale; (d) are containers or other materials used for the packing of any goods or classes of goods specified in the certificate of registration referred to in [****] clause (b) or for the packing of any containers or other materials specified in the certificate of registration referred to in clause (c). (4) The provisions of sub-section (1) shall not apply to any sale in the course of inter-State trade or commerce unless the dealer selling the goods furnishes to the prescribed authority in the prescribed manner a declaration duly filled and signed by the registered dealer to whom the goods are sold, containing the prescribed particulars on a prescribed form obtained from the prescribed authority: Provided that the declaration is furnished within the prescribed time or within such further time as that authority may, for sufficient cause, permit.” 17. Admittedly, UPPTCL is the registered dealer to whom a certificate has been issued by the competent authority in Form ‘B’. Such inter-state sales attract concessional rate of tax as per the description given in the Form. It is an admitted position that registration certificate issued to UPPTCL in Form ‘B’ subsists and has not been amended or cancelled, in terms of sub-section (4) of Section 7 of the Act.
Such inter-state sales attract concessional rate of tax as per the description given in the Form. It is an admitted position that registration certificate issued to UPPTCL in Form ‘B’ subsists and has not been amended or cancelled, in terms of sub-section (4) of Section 7 of the Act. In such eventuality, the registered dealer (UPPTCL) is required to provide declaration, dully filled and signed by it to the selling dealer (writ petitioner) containing the prescribed particulars in prescribed form. Such declaration and certificate has to be made in form ‘C’ appended to the Rules of 1957. In its absence, normal rate of tax would have to be paid by the selling dealer. This would be impermissible once the inter-state sale is covered by sub-section (1) and (3) of Section 8 and a certificate is already issued under Form ‘B’. 18. Issuance of Form ‘C’ is denied in the instant case for the reasons that inter-state sale of goods and material is not covered under Section 8(3) of the Act. The question to be considered therefore is as to whether the authority concerned is entitled to examine correctness of the disclosures made in Form ‘A’ on the basis of which certificate in Form ‘B’ has already been issued at the time of issuing Form ‘C’ ? It has also to be seen as to whether ‘power transmission’ is covered within the ambit and scope of Section 8(3)(b) or the provision is confined to generation or distribution of electricity alone. Implicit in the question would be the issue as to whether generation or distribution of electricity would include transmission of electricity or that it would be covered by the expression ‘any other form of power’ ? Question posed for consideration in the revision would be dependent upon the answer to these questions. 19. The provisions of the Act are clear inasmuch as the dealer at the time of seeking registration under Section 7 of the Act is required to make detailed disclosure as per Form ‘A’.
Question posed for consideration in the revision would be dependent upon the answer to these questions. 19. The provisions of the Act are clear inasmuch as the dealer at the time of seeking registration under Section 7 of the Act is required to make detailed disclosure as per Form ‘A’. Dealer has to disclose as to who is the person deemed to be manager in relation to the business of the dealer in the State concerned; status or relationship of the person who makes application; name of principal place of business; name of the other places in the State in which business is carried on and address of every such place; complete list of warehouses; list of places of business in each of the other States; business; particulars relating to registration, licence, permission etc.; language and script in which accounts are maintained; start day when business started; first sale in the course of inter-state trade; accounting pattern as well as start of the financial year and whether accounts of sale are prepared monthly/quarterly/half yearly/yearly. The disclosure in clause 16 requires specification of the goods or classes of goods that are being purchased by dealer in the course of inter-state trade or commerce. While furnishing such details the dealer also has to specify as to whether purchases are for resale, use in manufacture or processing of goods for sale, use in mining, use in generation or distribution of electricity or any other form of power, use in packing of goods etc. Such disclosures are required to be verified and an enquiry, as is found necessary, is to be conducted by the notified authority. It is only after arriving at a satisfaction with regard to correctness of such disclosures and after deposit of requisite fee that a declaration in Form ‘B’ is to be issued. Such declaration once is accepted and certificate is issued in Form ‘B’ then there would be statutory presumption of correctness of recitals contained in the certificate. The authority who is approached to issue Form ‘C’ cannot be permitted to question the correctness of such recitals contained in the certificate in Form ‘B’ or else the very premise and object of issuing Form ‘B’ would be frustrated. 20. In State of Madras v. Radio and Electricals, AIR 1967 SC 234 , such an issue came to be examined by the Apex Court.
20. In State of Madras v. Radio and Electricals, AIR 1967 SC 234 , such an issue came to be examined by the Apex Court. It was clearly observed that once certificate of registration is issued in Form ‘B’, it is not open for the officer to deny its benefit on the ground that goods specified cannot be used by the purchasing dealer for the purpose of its business. Para 13 to 15 of the judgment is reproduced : “13. The authority issuing the certificate under Rule 5(1), as expressly stated in the rule, has, before issuing a registration certificate, to be satisfied after making such enquiry as it thinks necessary that the particulars contained in the application are correct and complete. The enquiry would obviously be made in the light of the nature of the business and goods which are likely to be needed either for resale, or for use in the manufacture of goods for sale, or for use in the execution of contracts. Satisfaction which is contemplated by r. 5 is objective, and may be arrived at upon a quasijudicial enquiry. This Court has in several cases had occasion to consider the legality of orders of the notified authority refusing to grant certificates of registration in Form ‘B’ in respect of certain classes of goods which it was claimed by the tax-payer were necessary for the purpose of his business and were therefore requested to be specified in the certificate of registration: e.g. Indian Copper Corporation Ltd. v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bihar and others and J.K. Cotton Spinning & Weaving Co. Ltd. v. The Sales Tax Officer, Kanpur and another. On the plain words used in Section 7 and the Rules, it is contemplated that the certificate of registration may only be issued after an objective satisfaction by the notified authority that the specified goods are likely to be needed for the purpose of the business of the registered dealer, and that satisfaction is open to challenge in an appropriate proceeding before the High Court and even before this Court. Correctness or propriety of satisfaction of the notified authority in issuing the certificate in Form ‘B’ that the goods are likely to be required for the purpose of the business would not however be again open to challenge before another taxing authority in proceedings for assessment of tax.
Correctness or propriety of satisfaction of the notified authority in issuing the certificate in Form ‘B’ that the goods are likely to be required for the purpose of the business would not however be again open to challenge before another taxing authority in proceedings for assessment of tax. If therefore goods are specified in the certificate of registration in Form ‘B’ it is not open, when a claim is made in respect of the purchases of those goods for the application of concessional rate of tax, to the Sales Tax Officer to deny to the selling dealer of those goods the benefit on the ground that the goods specified cannot be used by the purchasing dealer for the purpose of his business. It is open to the Tax Officer to ascertain whether the goods in respect of which a claim for concessional rate is made are specified in the certificate of registration, but if the class of goods is included in the certificate of registration in Form ‘B’ he cannot say that the class of goods should not have been specified. 14. The Act, seeks to impose tax on transactions, amongst others, of sale and purchase in inter-State trade and commerce. Though the tax under the Act is levied primarily from the seller, the burden is ultimately passed on the consumers of goods because it enters into the price paid by them. Parliament with a view to reduce the burden on the consumer arising out of multiple taxation has, in respect of sales of declared goods which have special importance in inter-State trade or commerce, and other classes of goods which are purchased at an intermediate stage in the stream of trade or commerce, prescribed low rates of taxation, when transactions take place in the course of inter-State trade or commerce. Indisputably the seller can have in these transactions no control over the purchaser. He has to rely upon the representations made to him. He must satisfy himself that the purchaser is a registered dealer, and the goods purchased are specified in his certificates but his duty extends no further. If he is satisfied on these two matters, on a representation made to him in the manner prescribed by the Rules.
He has to rely upon the representations made to him. He must satisfy himself that the purchaser is a registered dealer, and the goods purchased are specified in his certificates but his duty extends no further. If he is satisfied on these two matters, on a representation made to him in the manner prescribed by the Rules. and the representation is recorded in the certificate in Form ‘C’ the selling dealer is under no further obligation to see to the application of the goods for the purpose for which it was represented that the goods were intended to be used. If the purchasing dealer misapplies the goods he incurs a penalty under Section 10. That penalty is incurred by the purchasing dealer and cannot be visited upon the selling dealer. The selling dealer is under the Act authorised to collect from the purchasing dealer the amount payable by him as tax on the transaction, and he can collect that amount only in the light of the declaration mentioned in the certificate in Form ‘C’. He cannot hold an enquiry whether the notified authority who issued the certificate of registration acted properly, or ascertain whether the purchaser, notwithstanding the declaration, was likely to use the goods for a purpose other than the purpose mentioned in the certificate in Form ‘C’. There is nothing in the Act or the Rules that for infraction of the law committed by the purchasing dealer by misapplication of the goods after he purchased them, or for any fraudulent misrepresentation by him, penalty may be visited upon the selling dealer. 15. Counsel for the appellant contended that the view expressed by the High Court in the judgments under appeal was in any case erroneous, because they held that a ‘C’ Form certificate produced by the selling dealer is conclusive of the right to the concessional rate of tax, and that no enquiry whatever may be made by the assessing authority.
15. Counsel for the appellant contended that the view expressed by the High Court in the judgments under appeal was in any case erroneous, because they held that a ‘C’ Form certificate produced by the selling dealer is conclusive of the right to the concessional rate of tax, and that no enquiry whatever may be made by the assessing authority. He invited our attention to the following passage from the judgment which is under appeal in Civil Appeal No. 335 of 1965: “We are of the opinion that whether or not the goods were in fact used for the stated purposes or even usable for such a purpose, so long as the purchasing dealer has furnished the required declaration to the selling dealer, the selling dealer becomes under law entitled to the benefit of Section 8(1) of the Act. It is no function of the selling dealer to enter into a judicial examination of whether the goods are in fact used or usable for the manufacture or processing of goods for sale by the purchasing dealer. The purchasing dealer declares that they are required for such a purpose and are further so specified in his form of registration granted by the sales tax authorities. It is not the function of the selling dealer to enquire whether the requirement of the purchasing dealer is bona fide or even is or is not within the certificate. of registration of that dealer.” It is implicit in the context in which these observations occur that if the purchasing dealer holds a valid certificate specifying the goods which are to be purchased, and furnishes the required declaration to the selling dealer, the selling dealer becomes on production of the certificate entitled to the benefit of S. 8(1). It is of course open to the sales tax authority to satisfy himself that the goods which are purchased by the purchasing dealer under certificate in Form ‘C’ are specified in the purchasing dealer’s certificate in Form ‘B’. Observation of the High Court that the selling dealer may not enquire whether the requirement is not within the certificate of registration of the purchasing dealer is not accurate. But whether the goods specified in the registration certificate in From ‘B’ can be used for the purpose is not for the selling dealer to determine.
Observation of the High Court that the selling dealer may not enquire whether the requirement is not within the certificate of registration of the purchasing dealer is not accurate. But whether the goods specified in the registration certificate in From ‘B’ can be used for the purpose is not for the selling dealer to determine. That is a matter which has already been determined by the notified authority issuing the certificate of registration.” A similar view has been taken in Chunni Lal Parshadi Lal v. Commissioner of Sales, U.P. Lko., (1986) 2 SCC 501 . Para 31 to 33 of the judgment is also reproduced : “31. This Court further observed that if the purchasing dealer held a valid certificate specifying the goods which were to be purchased and furnished the required declaration to the selling dealer, the selling dealer became on production of the certificate entitled to the benefit of Section 8(1) of that Act. It was of course open to the sales tax authorities to satisfy themselves that the goods which were purchased by the purchasing dealer under certificate in Form ‘C’ were specified in the purchasing dealer’s certificate in Form ‘C’. These observations as has been noted before were made in the context of the rules and the provisions of the Central Act, which were on similar lines, though their provisions were not in parinateria. 32. But it was contended by counsel for the dealer that in order to make the provisions of the Act operative and effective, this was the intention in the instant case and though the rule did not say so that it raised an irrebuttable presumption. We are of the opinion that this submission has to be accepted. After all the purpose of the rule was to make the object of the provisions of the Act workable i.e. realisation of tax at one single point, at the point of sale to the consumer. The provisions of rule should be so read as to facilitate the working out of the object of the rule. 33. An interpretation which will make the provisions of the Act effective and implement the purpose of the Act should be preferred when possible without doing violence to the language. The genuineness of the certificate and declaration may be examined by the taxing authority but not the correctness or the truthfulness of the statements.
33. An interpretation which will make the provisions of the Act effective and implement the purpose of the Act should be preferred when possible without doing violence to the language. The genuineness of the certificate and declaration may be examined by the taxing authority but not the correctness or the truthfulness of the statements. The Sales Tax Authorities can examine whether certificate is “farzi” or not, or if there was any collusion on the part of selling dealer but not beyond - i.e. how the purchasing dealer has dealt with the goods. If in an appropriate case it could be established that the certificates were “farzi” or that there was collusion between the purchasing dealer and the selling dealer, different considerations would arise. But in the facts of this case as noticed before, the facts have been found to the contrary by the appellate authority though that was the finding of the Sales Tax Officer. The question has been reframed for that purpose i.e. to bring about the real controversy in the background of the facts found in this case.” In Larsen & Toubro Limited v. Commercial Tax Officer, (1992) 85 STC 422 (Mad), a Division Bench of Madras High Court examined the scope of enquiry at the stage of issuance of Form ‘C’ and observed as under : “7. Further, in the case Larsen and Toubro Limited v. C.T.O. (85 S.T.C. 422), a similar prayer for issue of “C” forms was made. The only difference is that in that case, the claim was made prior to purchase of the goods. In that case, the Supreme Court has held that, “ .....in my view, the petitioners are entitled to have themselves registered as dealers under Section 7(2) and consequently are entitled to the supply of “C” forms for use in their purchase of goods in the course of inter-State sale or trade or commerce at the concessional rate.
In that case, the Supreme Court has held that, “ .....in my view, the petitioners are entitled to have themselves registered as dealers under Section 7(2) and consequently are entitled to the supply of “C” forms for use in their purchase of goods in the course of inter-State sale or trade or commerce at the concessional rate. The further question whether the goods have been rightly purchased for any one of the approved and permitted purposes and whether there was sufficient compliance or non-compliance or violation of the terms of the registration certificate or as to whether the “C” forms issued have been misused by the registered dealer shall be considered only at the subsequent and appropriate stage and in accordance with Section 10-A of the Central Sales Tax Act and it would be not only premature, but inappropriate to enter into an enquiry postulated under Section 10-A even at the stage of issue or the supply of “C” forms.”” In Commercial Taxation Officer Udaipur v. Rajasthan Taxchem, (2007) 3 SCC 124 , the Apex Court examined the issue once again and endorsed the submission that once the commodity is recorded in the registration certificate as raw material, then the department cannot role back from their stand to the detriment of assessee. Para 20, 24 to 28 of the judgment is reproduced : “20. We have already reproduced the question raised before this Court by the appellant as to whether the diesel purchased by the respondent can be termed as raw material for the manufacture of the final products yarn and fabric. Diesel is a raw material for the respondents which is being purchased and utilized in the process of manufacturing by way of generation of power through which the plant and machinery are being operated. It is relevant to consider that before purchasing any goods as raw material, it is necessary for the purchaser to apply to the Assessing Officer concerned for issuance of registration certificate specifically mentioning such items as raw material. In the instant case, the respondent accordingly approached the appellant who granted the registration certificate after considering all the aspects of the matter and taking a conscious decision. It is not the case of the appellant that at the time of grant of such registration certificate all facts were not placed before the appellant and that there is concealment of any material facts.
It is not the case of the appellant that at the time of grant of such registration certificate all facts were not placed before the appellant and that there is concealment of any material facts. The registration certificate so issued has been in effect during the concerned period and has not been cancelled, revoked or modified. The registration certificate issued by the appellant to the respondent has been marked as Annexure-R1. 24. Learned counsel for the respondent cited Commercial Taxes Officer v. Hindustan Radiator, 1962 STC 374, which was rendered by a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur. In this case, the assessee was carrying on the business of manufacture of motor radiators and was a registered dealer under the Sales Tax Act, 1954. The assessee purchased hydrochloric acid which has been included in the registration certificate as raw material, by furnishing a declaration to use it as raw material for manufacturing of radiators and, therefore, was entitled to pay concessional rate of tax. The Commercial Taxes Officer took the view that hydrochloric acid was not a raw material for manufacture of radiators and that the dealer was not entitled to concessional rate of tax. The assessee’s appeal was upheld by the Deputy Commissioner (appeals) and penalty was deleted. The revision and special appeal by the commercial tax officer before the Single Judge and the Division Bench of the Board respectively have failed. On reference, the High Court held as follows : “(i) that under Section 5C(1) for paying concessional rate of tax on the sale or purchase price of raw material, the following conditions were to be satisfied: (1) The purchaser should be a registered dealer, (2) the purchase should be of raw material, (3) the raw material should be for manufacture of goods in the State and (4) the goods so manufactured should be sold within the State or in the course of inter-State trade. The entry in the registration certificate issued to the dealer-assessee showed that hydrochloric acid was purchased as raw material for manufacture of the radiators and unless and until it was cancelled or modified it was binding on the department and was conclusive proof of the fact that hydrochloric acid was raw material for manufacture of radiators by the dealer assessee.
The entry in the registration certificate issued to the dealer-assessee showed that hydrochloric acid was purchased as raw material for manufacture of the radiators and unless and until it was cancelled or modified it was binding on the department and was conclusive proof of the fact that hydrochloric acid was raw material for manufacture of radiators by the dealer assessee. Further, there was nothing to show that the dealer assessee had committed any breach of the conditions attached to the concession that was made available to it and in this view penalty under Section 5C(2) could not be imposed”. 25. The Bench also held as under : “We agree with the view taken in Bowen Press’s case (1977) 39 STC 367 (Bom) that the entry in the registration certificate of the dealer-assessee that certain articles are raw material for the manufacture of goods is conclusive and in face of the entry in the registration certificate, it is not open to the assessing authority to contend that though a particular article has been mentioned in the registration certificate as raw material, is not in fact a raw material within the meaning of Section 2(mm) of the Act and if nay cancellation or modification is sought in respect of that entry, then, it is only by following the procedure laid down under the Act and the Rules framed thereunder that entry can be cancelled or modified.” 26. In Bowen Press v. State of Maharashtra, 1939 STC 367 (Bombay), the High Court held as under : “When an application by a registered dealer for recognition under Section 25 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, is made to the Sales Tax Officer, he has to determine whether the dealer is entitled to get the certificate of recognition. Before granting the recognition certificate in form 7, the officer has necessarily to determine whether the goods mentioned in the list are goods in respect of which a recognition certificate can be granted, for which the officer has to make such enquiry as he thinks fit. When a recognition certificate is granted by the officer and any particular goods are included in the list appended to the recognition certificate, the grant of this certificate implies a finding by the officer that the goods listed are goods in respect of which recognition can be granted. This could be as a result of a quasi-judicial enquiry.
When a recognition certificate is granted by the officer and any particular goods are included in the list appended to the recognition certificate, the grant of this certificate implies a finding by the officer that the goods listed are goods in respect of which recognition can be granted. This could be as a result of a quasi-judicial enquiry. If it is felt that the decision of the officer is incorrect, it could be revised by the appropriate authority. But once the recognition certificate is granted, it is not open to another officer assessing a dealer, who had sold the goods to the registered dealer holding the recognition certificate, to dispute the inclusion of any particular item in the recognition certificate and to come to a conclusion that to that extent the recognition certificate was incorrectly granted. If this were permitted, it would lead to confusion and chaos, because different Sales Tax Officers assessing different third parties, who had sold goods to such a dealer holding a recognition certificate, might come to different conclusions regarding the same item. Moreover, the result of allowing the assessing Sales Tax Officers to do this would be that the recognition certificate would have hardly any binding value at all and the holder of a recognition certificate might find it liable to be altered in effect in proceedings in which he would not even be heard.” 27. It is also stated that the State’s SLP against the CTO v. Hindustan Radiators was dismissed by this Court which was registered as SLP (Civil) No. 1538 of 1988. 28. Thus, in view of these judgments, it was submitted that once the commodity is recorded in the registration certificate as raw material then the department cannot roll back from their stand to the Department of the assessee as the assessee has not violated any condition but acted on the belief of the Department. It was also contended that the appellant is entitled to charge additional tax of 1% under Section 10(2) only where the registered dealer had purchased any commodity as raw material by paying a concessional rate of tax for a specified purpose and the goods are not utilized by him for the purpose specified.
It was also contended that the appellant is entitled to charge additional tax of 1% under Section 10(2) only where the registered dealer had purchased any commodity as raw material by paying a concessional rate of tax for a specified purpose and the goods are not utilized by him for the purpose specified. In the instant case, it can be seen that the respondent has purchased diesel as raw material and utilized the same for the purpose specified in the registration certificate and thus no condition is violated for invoking the provisions of Section 10(2) of the Act.” 21. Learned counsel for the writ petition has cited a number of judgments delivered by Madras High Court, Kerala High Court and Andhra Pradesh High Court, which are to similar effect. In view of the settled position, however, I am not inclined to refer to all such judgments. Recently, a Division Bench of this Court in Vadilal Enterprises Ltd. v. State of U.P. and others, (2016) 89 VST 108 (Alld), had an occasion to examine the issue and it was observed that once a certificate has been issued by the competent authority, it was impermissible for the authorities to withhold issuance of certificate in Form ‘C’. Para 26 to 28 of the judgment is reproduced : “26. The contention that no mandamus could be issued at this stage for issuance of Form-C for the year 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13 in view of Section 12(7) of the Central Sales Tax Rules is patently erroneous. The assessing officer of the petitioner cannot invoke Rule 12(7) of the Rules. Such objection, if any, could be invoked by the assessing officer of the State where the goods indicated in the registration form are being purchased. Once a request has been made for issuance of Form-C and the goods are indicated in the registration certificate issued under Section 8(3)(b) of the Act, the assessing authority could not stall the said request for an unreasonable period and is required to issue the certificate within a reasonable period. 27.
Once a request has been made for issuance of Form-C and the goods are indicated in the registration certificate issued under Section 8(3)(b) of the Act, the assessing authority could not stall the said request for an unreasonable period and is required to issue the certificate within a reasonable period. 27. This Court, in a series of decisions, have issued a mandamus directing the authorities to issue Form-C where it was found that the authority was not issuing Form-C. In Unitech Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam, (1991) 83 STC 207 , the Court issued a mandamus commanding the respondents to issue Form-C. Similarly a mandamus was issued in OMIL-JSC-JV v. Union of India and others, (2013) 61 VST 370 . 28. We also find that the Deputy Commissioner committed a manifest error in rejecting the petitioner’s application for issuance of Form-C, on the ground that the registration certificate has been amended. We are of the opinion that the amendment made in the registration certificate could not apply retrospectively and the order, if any, could only apply to an application filed after the amendment. Applications which are pending prior to the amendment of the registration are required to be considered as if the registration certificate had not been amended. The authority, therefore, committed a manifest error in rejecting the petitioner’s application for issuance of Form-C on the ground that the certificate had been amended. The Supreme Court in M/s Sivalik Collulose Ltd., Gajraula, District Moradabad and another v. State of U.P. and others, 1992 UPTC 1, held that the action under Section 7(4) of the Central Sales Tax Act by the authority granting the certificate of registration can only be prospectively and cannot operate retrospectively is fully applicable in the instant case.” 22. Learned counsel has also invited attention of this Court to a decision of the Apex Court in State of U.P. v. Universal Exporters and another, (1997) 7 SCC 531 . The provisions of Rule 12-A(5) of U.P. Sales Tax Rules in the context of issuance of blank forms has been examined. Rule 12-A(5) of the Rules has been quoted and is reproduced : “12-A. (5) If the Sales Tax Officer is satisfied that the requisition of the dealer for blank forms is genuine and reasonable, he may issue the same in such number as he deems fit.
Rule 12-A(5) of the Rules has been quoted and is reproduced : “12-A. (5) If the Sales Tax Officer is satisfied that the requisition of the dealer for blank forms is genuine and reasonable, he may issue the same in such number as he deems fit. If the fee paid is more than the fee payable for the number of forms issued, the balance shall be credited to the account of the dealer to be adjusted against any future issue of the forms.” Para 5 of the judgment in State of U.P. v. Universal Exporters (supra) is also reproduced : “5. That the Sales Tax Officer may satisfy himself that the requisition for the blank forms is genuine and reasonable does not empower him to pre-judge the issue as to whether or not the presumption under Section 3-AAA can be rebutted. That is something that the assessing authority must consider only after the blank form has been issued and it has been duly filled in and submitted, alongwith such other proof as the dealer adduces. It is only then that the assessing authority may consider whether such proof, alongwith the filled in form is sufficient to rebut the presumption drawn under the provision.” 23. Section 9-A otherwise provides that no registered dealer shall make any collection of tax on account of inter-state sale except in accordance with the Act and the Rules. In case tax over and above the rate specified under Section 8(1) is allowed to be collected, then the provisions of Section 9-A would be violated. Such questions can otherwise be examined at appropriate stage and in case of need proceedings can be drawn under Section 10 and 10-A of the Act if it is found that Form ‘C’ has been misused. The authorities therefore were clearly not justified in refusing to issue Form ‘C’ in respect of commodities specified in the certificate of registration issued in Form ‘B’ as being accessible to concessional rate of tax. 24. This Court is thus of the opinion that denial of Form ‘C’ to the UPPTCL despite the certificate issued in Form ‘B’ was wholly unwarranted and illegal yet, it would be appropriate to examine the matter from another aspect before concluding the discussions. The Commercial Tax Authorities have been of the opinion that ‘power transmission’ is not covered within the express terms of Section 8(3)(b) of the Act of 1956.
The Commercial Tax Authorities have been of the opinion that ‘power transmission’ is not covered within the express terms of Section 8(3)(b) of the Act of 1956. For arriving at such an opinion the provision itself has been taken note of and construed as being limited to ‘generation or distribution of electricity’ alone. While taking such view the authorities have not examined the expression occurring in the statute itself. Section 8(3)(b) talks of ‘generation or distribution of electricity or any other form of power’. Generation of electricity would connote production of electrical energy whereas its distribution would mean its actual supply to the end consumer of power. Transmission is the stage occurring between generation and distribution of electricity. Distribution of power would be wide enough to include transmission itself inasmuch as distribution itself cannot take place without transmission of power from its place of generation. The legislature has otherwise not confined the expression to ‘generation or distribution of electricity’ alone but has widened it by the use of expression ‘any other form of power’. This, in my opinion, would also be wide enough to include ‘transmission of power’. Even if transmission is not included in the term ‘generation or distribution of electricity’, it would definitely be covered by the last part of the expression i.e. ‘any other form of power’. The very premise, therefore, for the authorities to suspect applicability of Section 8(3)(b) in the instant case is based upon misconstruction of the provision itself. Even otherwise there would be no justification for the authorities to deny issuance of Form ‘C’ to UPPTCL for the two contracts in question when in respect of six other contracts the authorities of same department have routinely been issuing Form ‘C’ to UPPTCL. Facts in that regard pleaded in the writ petition are admitted. 25. In view of the discussions made above, the question posed for consideration in the revision is answered in favour of the assessee and it is held that the tribunal has committed manifest error of law in upholding denial of Form ‘C’ to the revisionist, notwithstanding the fact that registration certificate issued in Form ‘B’ specifies levy of tax at concessional rate in respect of inter-state sale made for power transmission.
A direction is also issued to the concerned authorities of the Department of Commercial Tax to issue Form ‘C’ to the revisionist in respect of items included in Form ‘B’, which are liable to be taxed under Section 8(1) of the Act of 1956. In view of the direction issued, alternative prayers made in the writ petition as well as issues between the revisionist and writ petitioner are not required to be examined any further. 26. Revision as well as writ petition accordingly are allowed. Parties to bear their own costs.