High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
M/S Hindustan Construction Corporation v. Commissioner Trade Tax U.P. Lucknow - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 1022 of 2000  RD-AH 6112 (4 April 2007)
TRADE TAX REVISION NO.1022 OF 2000
TRADE TAX REVISION NO.1023 OF 2000
TRADE TAX REVISION NO.1024 OF 2000
M/S Hindustan Construction Corporation,
Railway Road, Dadri, district Ghaziabad. ....Applicant
Commissioner of Trade Tax, (U.P.), Lucknow. .Opp.party
Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.
These three revisions under Section 11 of U.P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as "Act") are directed against the order of Tribunal dated 20.07.2000 relating to the assessment years 1993-94, 94-95 and 95-96.
Brief facts of the case are that the applicant was civil contractor and was liable to tax under section 3-F of the Act, on the value of the goods involved in the execution of works contract. Applicant applied under the compounding scheme introduced by the State Government under section 7-D of the Act for payment of 1% tax on the amount received against the execution of the works contract. For all the aforesaid assessment years Assistant Commissioner (Assessment) Trade Tax, Ghaziabad accepted the application under the compounding scheme and passed the appropriate orders for the assessment years 1993-94, 94-95 and 95-96 on 12.07.1996, 15.10.1996 and 26.02.1998 respectively. Deputy Commissioner (Executive), Ghaziabad initiated the proceedings under section 10-B of the Act and held that since under the compounding scheme applications were moved beyond time, therefore, applicant was not eligible under the compounding scheme. Deputy Commissioner (Executive), accordingly, directed the assessing authority to pass appropriate orders. Being aggrieved by the orders, applicant filed three appeals before the Tribunal. Tribunal by the impugned order dismissed the appeals.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the reasons for the cancellation of the compounding application is that the applications were not given within the stipulated time. He submitted that by the various circulars issued by Commissioner of Trade Tax the period has been extended and even applications given beyond specified time could also be accepted. He further submitted that once the agreement has been entered into between the applicant and the revenue authorities, such agreement can not be revised under section 10-B of the Act. He submitted that the agreement under section 7-D of the Act can only be cancelled for the reasons given under the compounding scheme namely, in case if the applicant concealed the fact and made mis-representation.
Admittedly, compounding scheme was accepted by the assessing authority. Acceptance of the applications were in the nature of agreement and it was not open to the Deputy Commissioner (Executive) to set aside the agreement in exercise of powers under section 10-B of the Act.
In my opinion, issue involved is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in the case of The Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P., Lucknow Vs. Qayum Khan Thekedar, Aliganj, Banda, reported in 2007 STR (45), 322, in which it has been held that the order passed under section 7-D of the Act is in the nature of agreement and is not revisable under section 10-B of the Act.
There is no allegation that in the application any fact had been concealed and applicant made any misrepresentation. Thus, the aforesaid revisions are being disposed of on the aforesaid ground without going into the question whether in view of the circulars applications were within time or not.
In the result, all the revisions are allowed. Order of the Tribunal and as well as orders passed under section 10-B of the Act for the assessment year 1993-94, 94-95 and 95-96 are set aside.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.