JUDGMENT
Rajes Kumar, J.
1. Present revision under Section 11 of U.P. Trade Tax Act (here in after referred to as “Acf” is directed against the order of Tribunal dated 07.06.1994 relating to the assessment year 1980-87,
2. Dealer/opposite party (hereinafter referred to as “Dealer”) Was carrying on the business of foods grains and oil seed. During the year under consideration, dealer claimed to have made the purchases of food grains and oil, seed worth Rs. 52,01,776/- from M/s Ganesh Trading Company, Kanpur. For the claim of exemption on the purchases, 8 Form 3-C(5) received from M/s Ganesh Trading Company, Kanpur were filed. It was claimed that M/s Ganesh Trading Company, Kanpur was registered dealer under the U.P. Sales Tax Aot and the alleged forms have been issued by the assessing authority to M/s Ganesh Trading Company, Kanpur. It has also been alleged that for the purchase 9R’s were issued and the payment was made} by the cheque. Assessing authority, however, disallowed the claim of exemption against the said Forms 3-C(5) on the ground that M/s Ganesh Trading Company, Kanpur was found to be forged firm. Dealer filed appeal before the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial), Sales Tax, Etawah, which was allowed and the matter was remanded back to the assessing authority vide order dated 16.09.1991. First appellate authority has stated that the dealer had shown the payment made by cheque and the details of the cheque have also been furnished but the assessing authority could not make the enquiry from the bank that from which branch, cheque has been encashed and in whose name and account, amount ‘has been credited. It has been ‘stated, that 9 R has not been proved to be forged and merely because the gate pass chungi, freight and the details of-the truck number have not been furnished before the assessing authority, it may give rise suspicion but these materials are not sufficient to prove that the goods have not been arrived at Etawah from Kanpur. First appellate authority has stated that it has not been disclosed that what action has been taken against the alleged forged firm and it was also necessary to find out what was the relationship between the dealer and the forged form. First appellate authority also held that in respect of the Mandi Gate pass necessary enquiry can be made from the Mandi Samiti. With the aforesaid observation, matter has been remanded back to the assessingn authority. Assessing authority instead of making the enquiry from the bank, Mandi Samiti and making out any case of any collusion between M/s Ganesh Trading Company, Kanpur and the dealer, rejected the claim of exemption on the ground that as per the information M/s Ganesh Trading Company, Kanpur had obtained registration after committing forgery and the necessary details from the bank could not be furnished. Against the assessment order, dealer filed appeal before the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial), Trade Tax.Mainpuri. Assistant Commissioner (Judicial), Trade Tax, Mainpuri vide order dated 23.02.1993 allowed the appeal and remanded back the matter to the assessing authority. Against the order of the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial), Trade Tax, Mainpuri dealer filed appeal before the Tribunal. Tribunal by the impugned order allowed the appeal and also allowed the exemption on the purchases made from M/s Ganesh Trading Company, Kanpur against the declaration Form in Form 3-C(5). Tribunal held that no proper enquiry as directed by the first appellate authority was made. Tribunal further held that M/s Ganesh Trading Company, Kanpur was registered dealer and Form 3C(5) issued by the assessing authority of the said dealer and, therefore, the exemption could not be disallowed, forms being genuine. Tribunal held that to provide fresh inning to the assessing authority, matter could not be remanded back.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
4. I do not find any error in the order of Tribunal. Admittedly, M/s Ganesh Trading Company, Kanpur was registered dealer and the alleged Form 3-C(5) were issued by the assessing authority of M/s Ganesh Trading Company, Kanpur to it. Thus, the said Form 3-C(5) were genuine, issued by the department. In respect of the purchases, dealer had issued 9 R and had also furnished the details of the payment made through bank. If assessing authority failed to make enquiry as directed by the first appellate authority while remanding back the matter, present dealer can not be held responsible. Assessing authority has also not been able to make out any collusion between the dealer and M/s Ganesh Trading Company, Kanpur. In the case of Chunni Lal Parsadi Mall v. CST, reported in 1986, UPTC, 747 (SC), Apex court held that the exemption against the declaration forms can not be refused unless form is found to be forged and case of collusion between the parties is made out. Similar view has been taken by this Court in the, case of Bharat Iron Stores v. CST. reported in 1994 UPTC, 130, Indra Steels Private Ltd, Ghaziabad v. CST, reported in 1995 UPTC, 4, Gaurav Traders v. CST, reported in 1996 NTN (Vol. 9), 262, C&T v. S/S Devendra Udyog, Khurja; reported in 2005 NTN (Vol. 26), 57, Nigotiya Dal Mills, Orai v. CTT, reported in 2004 (24) NTN, 407. In this view of the matter, order of Tribunal is upheld
5. In the result, revision fails and is accordingly, dismissed.