High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
The Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P. Lucknow v. S/S Noor Transformers Pvt. Ltd., Industrial Area, Basti - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 810 of 2002  RD-AH 16131 (28 September 2007)
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
TRADE TAX REVISION NO.810 of 2002.
TRADE TAX REVISION NO.879 of 2002.
TRADE TAX REVISION NO.881 of 2002.
TRADE TAX REVISION NO.882 of 2002.
TRADE TAX REVISION NO.897 of 2002.
TRADE TAX REVISION NO.913 of 2002.
The Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P., Lucknow. Applicant
S/S Noor Transformers Pvt. Ltd., Industrial Area, Basti. Opp.Party.
Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.
Present six revisions under Section 11 of U.P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as "Act") are directed against the order of Tribunal dated 19th July, 2002 relating to the assessment year, 1988-89, 1989-90, 1990-91, 1991-92, 1992-93 and 1993-94.
Admittedly, the dealer-opposite party (hereinafter referred to as "the Dealer") was holding an eligibility certificate under section 4-A of the Act for the manufacture and sales of instrument transformer with fabrication and machining of all nature. The case of the dealer was that it had purchased old transformer from UPSEB and after fabrication, repairing and machining etc, self manufactured transformer were sold against Form 3-D and some were sold without Form 3-D. Being the eligibility certificate holder under section 4-A of the Act, exemption on such turnover was claimed. Assessing authority levied the tax on the estimated turnover of coil and transformer oil on the ground that the dealer had done repairing work of the transformer received from UPSEB which was in the nature of works contract and the material used in the execution of such works contract was liable to tax under section 3-F of the Act. It appears that the assessment orders for the assessment years, 1991-92, 1992-93 and 1993-94 were passed ex-parte and the assessment orders for the assessment years, 1988-89, 1989-90 and 1990-91 were passed after hearing the dealer. All the appeals against the assessment orders have been dismissed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Trade Tax, Gorakhpur. Being aggrieved by the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Trade Tax, Gorakhpur, dealer filed second appeals before the Tribunal. Tribunal by the impugned order allowed the appeals for the assessment years, 1991-92, 1992-93 and 1993-94 and remanded back the matter to the assessing officer inasmuch as the assessment orders were ex-parte for the assessment years, 1988-89, 1989-90 and 1990-91 the appeals were decided on merits. Tribunal held that the dealer had purchased old transformers which were not usable and thereafter after fabrication, machining etc made it workable and sold to UPSEB. Tribunal further held that the purchases of unusable transformers and thereafter fabrication, machining etc amounts to manufacturing and covered under the goods for which eligibility certificate was issued under section 4-A of the Act.
Heard Sri B.K. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel and Sri Kunwar Saksena, learned counsel for the dealer-opposite party.
Learned Standing Counsel submitted that the dealer has not maintained any books of account in support of its claim that it had purchased old transformers and after fabricating, machining etc sold the same to UPSEB. He submitted that in fact the dealer has done repairing work of the old transformers which was in the nature of works contract, therefore, the assessing authority has rightly levied the tax on the coil and transformer oil which have been used in the repairing of the transformers under section 3-F of the Act.
I do not find any substance in the argument of the learned Standing Counsel.
Perusal of the assessment orders reveal that the fabricated, machined transformers were sold against Form 3-D to the UPSEB. There is absolutely no reason to disbelieve the case of the dealer that the old non-usable transformers were purchased from UPSEB and after fabrication, machining etc, the same were sold to UPSEB. Revenue is not able to place any evidence that old transformers have been provided by the UPSEB to the present dealer for the purposes of repairing, therefore, the view of the assessing authority that the dealer had done the repairing of the transformer provided by UPSEB in the nature of job work is merely on presumption, surmises and conjuncture and based on no material. In this view of the matter, the order of the Tribunal is upheld.
It may be mentioned here that for the assessment years, 1991-92, 1992-93 and 1993-94, Tribunal has not adjudicated the issue on merit and remanded back the matter to the assessing authority to pass fresh assessment order after providing opportunity, therefore, the questions raised in the revisions relating to the aforesaid three years do not arise from the order of the Tribunal.
In the result, all the six revisions fail and are, accordingly, dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.