High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
M/S. Asian Pants (India) Ltd. Moti Lal Nehru Road Agra v. The Commissioner Of Trade Tax, Lucknow. - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 397 of 1999  RD-AH 20558 (5 December 2006)
Court no. 22
Trade Tax Revision no. 397 Of 1999.
Trade Tax Revision no. 398 Of 1999.
Trade Tax Revision no. 405 Of 1999.
Trade Tax Revision no. 406 Of 1999.
M/S Asian Paints Ltd., Agra. ... Revisionist.
The Commissioner, Trade Tax, U. P. Lucknow...... Opp. Party
Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.
These four revisions under section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") are directed against the order of the Tribunal dated 16th July, 1999 relating to the assessment years 1992-93 under the U. P. Trade Tax as well as Central Sales Tax Act.
For the assessment year 1992-93, the Commissioner of Trade Tax as well as applicant filed appeals before the Tribunal under the U. P. Trade Tax Act as wells as Central Sales Tax Act. The Tribunal has decided all the four appeals by a common order, allowed the appeals of Commissioner of Trade Tax in part and dismissed the appeals of the applicant, therefore, four revisions have been filed against the order of the Tribunal.
During the year under consideration, dealer had engaged 12 Contractors for the constructions of building etc. It appears that the tax had been deducted at source. The Assessing Authority demanded the tax on the ground that the dealer had deducted lesser amount from payment to the Contractors. Further, the claim of concessional rate of tax had not been allowed on the amount of Rs.14,40,016.75 on the ground that Form III-B for Rs.1,84,513.50 could not be filed and defective Forms III-B for Rs.12,55,503.25 were filed. The entire miscellaneous sales were assessed to tax @ 10% while according to the applicant it included the sales of various commodities, some were liable to tax @ 10%, some @ 5% and some @ 4%. Applicant claimed that during the year under consideration, applicant had not suapplied any material to the Contractors. The Assessing Authority, however, assessed the tax at Rs.10 Lacs towards the value of material supplied to the Contractors in the absence of copies of contract being provided for 11 Contractors. Some of the claim of goods returned, cash discount were also disallowed. Under the Central Sales Tax in the absence of Form-C, tax had been assessed at the higher rate and the claim of stock transfer had also been rejected. Being aggrieved by the assessment orders, applicant filed appeals before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Trade Tax, Agra. The Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Trade Tax, Agra vide order dated 19.4.1997 allowed both the appeals in part. It appears that before the First Appellate Authority, dealer had filed Form III-B for Rs.14,40,016.75. The Appellate Authority accepted those Forms and allowed the benefit of concessional rate of tax, Appellate Authority had also accepted the plea of the applicant that in respect of those Contractors who have opted for compounding under Section 7-D of the Act tax was deducted @ 1% while in other cases, tax was deducted @ 4%, therefore, amount demanded in this regard, was unjustified. The Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Trade Tax has also accepted the claim of the applicant that under the head ''miscellaneous sales', some of the goods were liable to tax @ 10%, some @ 5% and some @ 4%. The First Appellate Authority accordingly determined the turnover. In appeal relating to the Central sales, the Appellate Authority has accepted the Form-C and has also accepted the claim of stock transfer. However, some of the claim of the applicant was not allowed. Being aggrieved by the order of the First Appellate Authority, applicant as well as Commissioner of Trade Tax filed appeals before the Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the appeals of the applicant and has partly allowed the appeals of the Commissioner of Trade Tax.
Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that the Tribunal has allowed the appeals of the Commissioner of Trade Tax without adverting to the findings recorded by the First Appellate Authority. Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that the appeals of the applicant have also been dismissed without dealing with the issues properly involved in the appeals. Learned Standing Counsel also agreed with the submissions of learned Counsel for the applicant.
I have perused the order of the Tribunal and the authorities below.
I find that the Tribunal has not adverted to the reasons given by the First Appellate Authority while giving the relief to the applicant, and the issue involved in the appeals of the applicant have also not been dealt with properly and therefore, the order of the Tribunal is vitiated and is liable to be set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Tribunal to decide the appeals afresh.
In the result, all the aforesaid four revisions are allowed. Order of the Tribunal dated 16.7.1999 is set aside. The Tribunal is directed to decide all the four appeals afresh after giving proper opportunity to the parties and after considering the submissions and reasons given by the First Appellate Authority.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.