JUDGMENT : ALOK MATHUR, J. 1. Heard Sri Rohit Nandan Shukla, learned Standing counsel for the revisionist, who has instant revision as well as Sri P.K. Sinha appearing for the respondent. 2. The State has preferred this revision against the order of Commercial Tax Tribunal dated 15th November, 2007 whereby the Tribunal has allowed the appeal preferred by the revisionist. 3. Following questions of law has been pressed by the revisionist:- “(i) Whether the Tribunal was justified in providing the benefit of exemption of tax to the Respondent contrary to the findings arrived at by the Assessing Authority and that too without considering the adverse material found during survey dated 4/5th July, 2001? (ii) Whether the Learned Trade Tribunal was justified in waiving of the interest which was liable under Section 8(1) on the admitted sale turn over like admitted tax? (iii) Whether the judgment and order passed by the Tribunal is justified ignoring the facts set out in the assessment order which was passed strictly in accordance facts available on records as also the provisions of the Trade Tax Rules?” 4. It has been submitted by counsel for the revisionist that the respondent/Dealer is engaged in business of betel nuts, catechu, tea, Ilaichi, General merchant etc. A survey was conducted by the Central Excise Department with regard to the business place of M/s Harsingar Gutaka Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Gopal Grinding Industries on 4th and 5th July, 2001 and on the inspection it was found that the owner of the firm M/s Mahesh & Co. (The respondent/Firm) is also the Director of M/s Harshringar Gutka and the respondent/firm supplied the raw material, betel nuts, catechu etc. to M/s Harshringar Gutka Pvt. Ltd. The stock of the respondent/firm was in Satnam Cold Storage and on inspection 200 bags of betel nuts was found related with M/s Mahesh and Co. 5. The grinding works of the goods sent by M/s Mahesh & Co. was being done by M/s Gopal Grinding Industries and in the said Gopal Grinding Industries difference in stock was found. On the basis of material collected during aforesaid inspection the assessing authority rejected the books of accounts and determined tax of Rs. 1,18,27,701.00 on the sale turnover of Rs. 15,20,000/- vide assessment order dated 4.2.2006. was being done by M/s Gopal Grinding Industries and in the said Gopal Grinding Industries difference in stock was found. On the basis of material collected during aforesaid inspection the assessing authority rejected the books of accounts and determined tax of Rs. 1,18,27,701.00 on the sale turnover of Rs. 15,20,000/- vide assessment order dated 4.2.2006. While passing the order the assessing authority recorded that there was huge difference in the stock by the respondent and further that Gopal Grinding Industries did not show any purchase or sale itself but the said purchase of betel nut was certainly done with collusion with M/s Mahesh and Co. and Harshringar Gutka Pvt. Ltd. as has been borne out from the report submitted by Central Excise department during the physical verification. It was recorded that in the assessment order that there was discrepancies in respect of 1000 kilograms of betel nuts in the accounts of M/s Gopal Grinding Industries which has been borne out from the statement. 6. As against the assessment order the respondent preferred first appeal under Section 9 of U.P. Trade Tax Act 1948 before the Joint Commissioner (Appeal)-2, Trade Tax, Lucknow and the appeal was dismissed by means of order dated 23.8.2006. 7. The first appellate authority concurred with the findings of the assessing authority and rejected the contentions of the respondent holding that evasion of tax has been established during the course of survey conducted on 4/5.7.2001 and the said tax evasion has been done by the respondent firm in collusion with M/s Harshringar Gutka Pvt. Ltd. and further he was not satisfied with the explanation given with regard to cash transaction of Rs. 12,20,000.00. It also stated that form 3-B has been obtained after 2 years, therefore, the same are not valid for the assessment year in question. It was further observed that the sale has been made by the respondent-firm after purchase of goods from unregistered firm and gave cogent reasons for imposing the tax and concurred with the reasons given by the assessing authority and confirmed for imposing tax on respondents. 8. Being aggrieved by the order passed by first appellate authority dated 23.8.2006 the respondent preferred second appeal before the Commercial Tax Tribunal. The Tribunal by means of order dated 15.11.2007 has partially allowed the appeal. 8. Being aggrieved by the order passed by first appellate authority dated 23.8.2006 the respondent preferred second appeal before the Commercial Tax Tribunal. The Tribunal by means of order dated 15.11.2007 has partially allowed the appeal. The Tribunal in the impugned judgment has considered the fact that the owner of the respondent firm is also the Director of M/s Harshringar Gutka Co. and on the basis of the allegations of collusion with regard to evasion of tax with Gopal Grinding Industries and further that the respondent firm has continuously supplied betel nuts without entering the same in the books of accounts. The Tribunal did not accept and the findings of assessing authority as well as first assessing authority while partially allowing the appeal of the assessed. 9. The Tribunal observed that only on the basis of conjectures and surmises the assessment been done and the revisionist has been assessed to tax with regard to goods which were dispatched form Gopal Grinding Industries. 10. The second issue which was considered by the Tribunal was with regard to the interests levied on the tax while rejecting form 3-B. In this regard the Tribunal observed that the respondent had submitted Form 3-B dated 5th March, 2004 while the transactions were conducted for the assessment year 2000-2001. The said form 3-B being beyond two years were not liable to be accepted and, therefore, benefit of Form 3-B was not admissible to the respondent. 11. They further held that according to Section 8 the interest amount could not be levied upon the respondent as disputed amount would amount “admitted tax” and the said amount not being admitted tax no interest was liable to be paid according to Explanation of Section 8 of U.P. Trade Tax Act. 1948. 12. To deal with the question with regard to addition made by the assessing authority it will be relevant to consider the reasons stated by the assessing authority in his order dated 4.2.2006. It has been observed that information was received by the department from Central Excise Department which had conducted the inspection with regard to M/s Harshringar Gutka Pvt. Ltd. which is a sister concern of M/s Gopal Grindings Industries, M/s Mahesh and Company and M/s Satnam Cold Storage from where the documents were examined by Deputy Commissioner (SIT) Sales Tax, Region B, Lucknow. 13. 13. It has been stated that during the inspection it was found that Shri Mahesh is the Director of M/s Mahesh and Company as well as M/s Harshringar Gutka Pvt. Ltd where he is working as Managing Director. M/s Mahesh and Company supplied raw material for preparation of end product by M/s Harshringar Gutka Pvt. Ltd. It was discovered that raw material which is being supplied by M/s Harshringar Gutka Pvt. Lt. were sent through M/s Gopal Grinding Industries, Daliganj, Lucknow. 14. During the investigation the stock allegedly sent by M/s Mahesh and Company to the Gopal Grinding Industries was not found but it was discovered that it found its way to Satnam Cold Storage which premises were found locked at the time of inspection. 15. It was also found that there was difference in raw material being supplied by M/s Gopal Grinding Industries to M/s. Harshringar Gutka Pvt. Ltd. and difference in the two it was presumed was being sold to unregistered dealers with intention to evade tax. It was also presumed that unexplained cash to the tune of Rs. 12,20,000/- was utilized for purchase and sale from unregistered dealers which was also brought to tax. 16. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that he has been maintaining regular book of accounts and has been paying taxes accordingly. He has challenged the assessment made by the assessing authority solely on the ground that the report submitted by the Excise Department on an inspection made of Ms/ Gopal Grinding Industries. He has vehemently urged that M/s Gopal Grinding Industries is a separate firm and is is not connected to the opposite parties and the amount of Rs. 12,20,000/- found in cash book was with regard to transactions between various parties who were duly recorded and was in no way connected with sale and purchase of Gutka or any of its ingredients. 17. The Revenue could not justify the nexus between the un-account fund and cash book and the transaction between various firms with regard to purchase and sale of various ingredients of gutka and, therefore, the first appellate authority came to the conclusion that opposite parties cannot be held to be liable for evasion of taxes and also that the amount found in cash book could not related to the transactions conducted by the opposite parties, therefore, set aside the order of assessing authority in this regard. 18. 18. The first appellate authority concurred with the findings of the assessing authority and rejected the findings of respondents. Considering the aforesaid facts the Tribunal in the second appeal concluded that books of accounts of the respondent has been rejected without any reasonable basis. During inquiry no adverse material was found in the premises of the respondent. Just because certain material dispatched from Gopal Grinding Industries to Harshringar Gutka Pvt. was not tracable in the said premises adverse inference has been recorded without there being any material to support such findings. Only reasons for rejecting the books of accounts is the cash entry for Rs. 12,20,000/- for which explanation has been given by the respondent that the Tribunal in the aforesaid circumstances were satisfied with the explanation given by the respondent, therefore, decided the second appeal in favour of the respondent and against the Revenue in this regard. 19. Considering the submissions of both the parties it emerges that only because there was some difference in stock with regard to inspection conducted by Excise Department in the premises of Gopal Grinding Industries additions were made while assessing the respondent. 20. The second ground for revision that Rs. 12,20,000/- was found in the cash book which according to the assessing authority was linked to the transactions of sale and purchase of raw material in manufacturing of Gutka, while the assessee was able to satisfy the Tribunal that the amount found in cash register was not related to the sale and purchase transactions and that there was no evasion of tax by the respondent. The Tribunal in this regard has considered the entire material and gave reasons for coming to the said conclusion. 21. The State, on the other hand, while assailing the said finding of the Tribunal had only reiterated the findings spelt out in the order passed by the assessing authority as well as the first appellate authority and no fact could be placed before it which could persuade us from giving a finding different from the finding recorded by the Tribunal. In this regard, I do not find any infirmity with the orders of the Tribunal and the question number (i) is answered against the revisionist and in favour of the assessee. 22. The Tribunal has accepted the reasoning given by the assessee that the amount of cash of Rs. In this regard, I do not find any infirmity with the orders of the Tribunal and the question number (i) is answered against the revisionist and in favour of the assessee. 22. The Tribunal has accepted the reasoning given by the assessee that the amount of cash of Rs. 12,20,000/- discovered was not utilized towards the sale or purchase of raw material and also that the Assessing Authority could not found any discrepancy in the cash book and various documents and accounts maintained by the assessee and, therefore, the rejection of book of accounts was against the provisions of law. It has also been observed by the Tribunal that from the cash book maintained by the assessee transaction from the date 3.7.2000 to 15.11.2000 the cash of Rs. 12,20,000/- found could not be said to be related to any transaction and nor the said transaction has been pointed out in the assessing order and, therefore, no adverse interference in this case can be made against the assessee and, therefore, the additions made were set aside. 23. No fact could be placed by the State which can persuade this Court to take a view different from the view recorded by the Tribunal and, therefore, this question is answered in favour of the assessee as against the respondent. 24. The second question relates to the additions made by the Assessing Officer while rejecting Form 3 Kha as from 3.1.1991 to 5.3.2004 which are not valid for the assessment year 2000-01. The Assessing Officer has levied interest payable on the admitted sale turnover as if it was admitted tax. The Tribunal while allowing the appeal of the assessee has upheld the imposition of tax but waived off all the interest imposed on the said tax. It is the case of the assessee that the turnover in the return was not admitted and, therefore, interest under Section 8 could not have been levied. 25. In the present case, Form 3 Kha was not valid for the assessment year in question and, therefore, the tax was rightly levied upon the sale transaction. It is the case of the assessee that the turnover in the return was not admitted and, therefore, interest under Section 8 could not have been levied. 25. In the present case, Form 3 Kha was not valid for the assessment year in question and, therefore, the tax was rightly levied upon the sale transaction. In the case of M/s. Hindustan Aluminium Corporation Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax, 1996 U.P.T.C. 795 the word “tax admittedly payable has been considered in detail, which is quoted herein-below:- “As regards the last contention of the learned Standing Counsel Section 8 of the Act, as I have mentioned earlier Section 8 of the Act uses an expression tax admittedly payable and then it uses the item on which the interest shall become due and to be payable i.e. unpaid amount and then under expression 'such amount' the use of these expression indicate that as regards tax admittedly payable and the said amount of tax is not deposited within the time prescribed of any part of that amount remain unpaid then on that unpaid account till the date of payment of such amount interest shall become due and payable. It means the expression tax admittedly payable refers to the amount of tax admittedly payable according to the dealer i.e. the amount of tax calculated on his turnover by the dealer on the basis of the entry admitted by him to be applicable over the admitted turnover of the dealer and this section indicates that out of the amount of tax admittedly payable if the same either in part or in whole is not deposited in time the liability of interest will arise in regard to the amount. This leads once to the only conclusion that any amount of tax in regard to which there is a dispute be it on account of the dispute particular and dispute regarding applicability of the entry and the rate of other under law the interest will not be payable. No where this section discloses any such thing as bonafide or malafide dispute and therefore, the question of bona fide and mala fide is irrelevant. No where this section discloses any such thing as bonafide or malafide dispute and therefore, the question of bona fide and mala fide is irrelevant. If there has been a dispute as in the present case with reference to the applicability of the entry under which the item in question was covered which dispute had been decided by the Supreme Court finally as mentioned earlier after debate, the dispute did exist and therefore, the dealer could be subjected to imposition of interest. It is another thing that the matter of precaution dealer might have realized the tax but that is not relevant at this juncture because the section does not provide any such thing as bona fide dispute. This had been the view taken by the Supreme Court as well as in the case of Commissioner Sales Tax vs. M/s. Qureshi Cruciblc Centre, 1993 U.P.T.C. 901(8) : AIR 1994 SC 25 , after having referred to the observations of the learned Single Judge of our High Court in the revision which reads as under: “There have been no finding by the Tribunal that the assessee acted mala fide in not depositing the tax at the rate 7 per cent. The demand of interest was not justified.” Their Lordships observed: “We are unable to see any relevance of the mala fides in the case, Section 8 (1) does not say that the non-payment should be mala fide. This is also not a case where the rate of tax applicable was in dispute or disputed by the dealers. This is simply a case where the dealer calculated the tax at an inapplicable rate. He did not and could not plead ignorance of the change in rate of tax selected two years earlier. In the circumstances, the concept of such mala-fide was not relevant in the context.” 26. Section 8 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act is quoted herein-below: “8. He did not and could not plead ignorance of the change in rate of tax selected two years earlier. In the circumstances, the concept of such mala-fide was not relevant in the context.” 26. Section 8 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act is quoted herein-below: “8. Payment and recovery of tax: (1) The tax admittedly payable shall be deposited within the time prescribed or by the thirty-first day of August, 1975, whichever is later failing which simple interest at the rate of 2 per cent per mensem shall become due and be payable on the unpaid amount with effect from the day immediately following the last date prescribed or till the date of payment of such amount, whichever is later and nothing contained in Section 7 shall prevent or have the effect of postponing the liability to pay such interest. Explanation - For the purposes of this sub-section, the tax admittedly payable means the tax which is payable under this Act on the turnover of sales or, as the case may be, the turnover or purchases, or of both, as disclosed in the accounts maintained by the dealer, or admitted by him in any return or proceeding under this Act, whichever is granted or, if no accounts were maintained then according to the estimate of the dealer and includes the amount payable under Section 3-B or sub-section (6) of section 4-B.” 11. The explanation to the said sub-section clearly defines the term “the tax admittedly payable” and illustrates the situation in which the tax would be deemed to be admittedly payable, the same are as follows:- (i) The tax which is payable under this Act on the turnover of sales, as the case may be, the turnover of purchase, or both, as disclosed in the accounts maintained by the dealer. (ii) The tax admitted by the dealers in any return or proceedings under this act, whichever is greater. (iii) If no accounts were maintained, then according to the estimate of the dealer and included the amount payable under section 3-B or sub-section (6) of section 4-B.” 27. (ii) The tax admitted by the dealers in any return or proceedings under this act, whichever is greater. (iii) If no accounts were maintained, then according to the estimate of the dealer and included the amount payable under section 3-B or sub-section (6) of section 4-B.” 27. It is not in dispute in the present case that the assessee himself mentioned certificate in their accounts the turnover to claim benefit of Section 3 Kha, which according to the provisions of the Act were on the face of it not valid and this did not require any deep examination of the issue. 28. Section 4-B of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 provides special relief to certain manufacturers. The said section opens with a non-obstante clause and has precedence over sections 3, 3A, 3AAAA and 3D of the Act. The State legislature has provided special relief to certain manufacturers upon the fulfillment of the conditions mentioned therein for manufacture of specified goods. A manufacturer holding the recognition certificate shall be liable to pay tax at the concessional rate or be wholly or partially exempted from tax on the purchase of raw material or packing material, as may be notified in the gazette of the State Government in that behalf. Clause (b) of section 4-B (1) gives relief to a selling dealer to such manufacturers holding recognition certificate on furnishing by the selling dealer the prescribed form which is form 3-B. 29. The Rule 25-B is the relevant rule which prescribes the document 3-B the requisite form to be furnished by such manufacturer to its selling dealer to avail the benefit of concessional rate of tax or tax at nil rate, as the case may be. Rule 25-B is reproduced herein-below:- “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”). ..... ..... (3) If the trade tax officer is satisfied that the demand that for blank declaration Form referred in sub-rule (1) is genuine and reasonable, he may issue such number of forms a he deems fit......A form issued by the Trade Tax Officer in a financial year shall be valid for the transaction of purchase or sale made during the financial year as also made during two financial year immediately preceding and succeeding that financial year.” 30. It is pertinent to mention at this stage that the assessing authority in its order dated 4.2.2006 considered the facts with respect to filing of Form 3-B. It is mentioned that the respondent dealer filed the 44 number of Form 3-B against the sale of Rs. 1,68, 82, 230/- and on investigation of the said 44 Forms, it is found that the same were issued on 5.3.2004 from the department hence these all the 44 forms were not valid for the financial year 2000-01 and were valid for financial year 2001-02. Hence, the tax at the rate of 10 per cent has been levied with respect to sale against which form 3-B were found invalid. 31. It is found that the respondent dealer himself filed the invalid Form 3-B, contrary to provisions of the Act. It was well within the knowledge of the respondent dealer that 44 Form 3-B were not valid for the financial year 2000-01 and the respondent dealer is liable to pay the tax at full rate i. e. at the rate of 10 per cent but despite the fact, respondent dealer did not deposit the tax at full rate i.e at the rate of 10 per cent and deposited the tax at concessional rate at the rate of 2.5 per cent and deliberately claimed the exemption which was not admissible to him. 32. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pepsico India Holdings Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Trade Tax, Lucknow on 5th April, 2011 in Civil Appeal No. 2926 of 2011 and SLP (C) No. 10522 of 2008 set at rest the dispute as under:- “14. The appellant had taken the chance to get a judicial verdict on the said issue. 32. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pepsico India Holdings Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Trade Tax, Lucknow on 5th April, 2011 in Civil Appeal No. 2926 of 2011 and SLP (C) No. 10522 of 2008 set at rest the dispute as under:- “14. The appellant had taken the chance to get a judicial verdict on the said issue. Once it has been confirmed that the tax is payable under the Act, the same becomes payable from the date when it was due and not from the date when the judicial verdict was pronounced (unless and until, in a case, the court specifies a particular date from which it shall be payable). Thus, once it has been confirmed by the Court that the tax is payable under the Act it would be covered within the definition of the term “the tax admittedly payable” as defined in the explanation to section 8(1) and in case, the tax had not been paid then the same becomes payable along with interest as mentioned in section 8(1) of the Act. ..... 16. As in the present case the tax becomes admittedly payable once it has been held that the tax is payable under the Act, the interest would be payable in terms of sub-section (1) of section 8 of the Act and not in terms of sub-section (1B) of Section 8 of the Act. 17. This court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax vs. Qureshi Crucible Centre, 1993 Supp (3) SCC 495 has held that where a dealer fails to pay tax at the correct rate because he claimed not to know the revision in the rate, the dealer remains liable to pay interest at a higher rate, penal rate under section 8(1) from the date when the tax became due and payable. In such a case, the dealer cannot claim that he is liable only from the date of the assessment order fixing the correct rate of tax. Similarly, in case where the dealer has taken a chance and it has been held that the tax is payable under Act, the same becomes payable from the date when it was due.” 33. On applying aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, the Tribunal has wrongly granted relief to the assessee by deleting interest. Similarly, in case where the dealer has taken a chance and it has been held that the tax is payable under Act, the same becomes payable from the date when it was due.” 33. On applying aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, the Tribunal has wrongly granted relief to the assessee by deleting interest. After rejection of Form 3-B the amount of interest levied on admitted tax was liable to be paid by the assessee and the order of the Assessing Officer in this regard is in conformity with the statutory schemes as well as the judgments quoted hereinabove. The order of the Tribunal in this regard is set aside and the question of law No. (ii) is answered in favour of the revenue as against the assessee. 34. The revision is accordingly partly allowed.