IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Trade Tax Revision No. 4 of 2010 S/Shri B.T.C. Industries Pvt. Ltd., Kishanpur, Kichha ……… Revisionist Versus Commissioner, Trade Tax / Commercial Tax, Dehradun .……. .. Respondent Mr. Syed Nadim, Advocate for the revisionist. Mr. J.P. Joshi, Chief Standing Counsel (Govt. of Uttarakhand) for the respondent. Date of Judgment: 20.12.2010 JUDGMENT Coram: Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J. Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. BARIN GHOSH, C.J. (ORAL) Delay Condonation Application No. 10554 of 2010 Considered the application for condonation of delay in preferring the revision application and on being satisfied with the reasons furnished, we allow the application for condonation of delay. Trade Tax Revision No. 4 of 2010 By consent of the parties, the revision application is taken up for hearing. 2. Trucks loaded with coal were intercepted. At the time when such interception took place, though it was held out that the intercepted coals are meant for revisioner, there was no document suggesting that those were tax paid. As a result, after obtaining security, the goods were permitted to be released. Subsequently, on notice to the revisioner, penalty proceedings were initiated. Revisioner contended that coal is used as fuel in its industry and, accordingly, it has tax exemption. Revisioner disclosed that it has issued ‘C’ form to its supplier and the intercepted coal was being supplied under the said ‘C’ form. It was contended that since the coal was being imported through a route, which is not normally adapted, it cannot be held that there was any clandestine 2 intention in using the said route, in as much as tax on coal for the revisioner is exempted. Fact remains that in the ‘C’ form, that was issued by the revisioner in favour of its supplier, was all blank at the time when the same was handed over to the supplier of the revisioner. Revisioner did not indicate the particulars of the order placed upon its supplier, which is a requirement, as would be evident from the form ‘C’. Form ‘C’ was purported to be utilized by showing that the intercepted coals were being supplied to the revisioner. This form ‘C’ was not with the goods intercepted. This part of the form ‘C’ was inserted therefore subsequent to interception of the goods in question. By not filling up the form ‘C’ in the manner the same was required to be filled up, i.e., by not mentioning the order number in the form ‘C’, revisioner gave a blank cheque to its supplier, on the basis whereof the supplier could supply coal to the revisioner and in addition to such coal, if it wanted to, could deal with coal otherwise in the State of Uttarakhand. What was the real intention in relation to the intercepted coal is any body’s guess, since one truck, it is not disputed, did not carry any paper. An industrialist will be so naive that he will expose itself with a financial obligation without any reciprocal advantage is also not acceptable. The fact remains that no tax was paid thereon. 3. That being the situation, by reason of failure on the part of the revisioner in protecting itself while issuing the form ‘C’, it failed to ensure that the goods to be supplied thereunder would only be supplied to the revisioner for being used as fuel, for which there is a tax exemption. 4. In the circumstances, there is no scope of interference. The revision application fails and the same is dismissed. (V.K. Bist, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 20.12.2010 20.12.2010 Amit