High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
The Commissioner Trade Tax Lucknow v. M/S Suraj Dall Mill At Jalaun - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 1548 of 1994  RD-AH 1267 (29 October 2004)
Court no. 55
Trade Tax Revision no. 1548 of 1994.
Commissioner of Trade Tax, U. P. Lucknow. ... Revisionist.
M/S Suraj Dal Mill at Jalaun. ... Opp. party.
Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.
The present revision under Section 11 of U. P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as ''Act') is directed against the order of Tribunal dated 15.7.1994 relating to assessment year 1991-92.
Dealer opp. party (hereinafter referred to as ''dealer') was carrying on the business of manufacture and sale of Dal etc. and alleged to have purchased food grains for Rs.32,57,250/- during the year under consideration from the party Ramesh Kumar Moth and issued one Form 3-C(2) no.496278 dated 2.10.1991. On the basis of the said Form, dealer had claimed exemption. Assessing Authority rejected the claim on the basis of information received from STO (SIB) that the alleged 9-R against which, goods was purchased, was not issued to Ramesh Kumar by Mandi Samiti and the said Form 3-C (2) was declared invalid by the Commissioner of Trade Tax. Against the assessment order, dealer filed appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeal). Deputy Commissioner (Appeal) allowed the appeal and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer with the certain directions. In the order, it had been observed that the Form was declared invalid on 23.1.1992 and in the statement given during the course of assessment proceeding, partner of the Firm had stated that the Form had not been received, though the date of statement was not mentioned, but from the perusal of record, prime facie appears to be on 7.9.92, therefore, the Appellate Authority directed to examine whether the Form had been received before the cancellation or after the cancellation. Appellate Authority ;further observed that STO (SIB) informed that the alleged 9-R against which purchase was made from Ramesh Kumar, was not issued to Ramesh Kumar by Mandi Samiti, therefore, it was directed that it had to be re-examined as to whether the Form had been issued by Ramesh Kumar from whom purchase was made in this regard. Direction was also issued to examine mode of payment for making purchases. Against the order of Deputy Commissioner (Appeal), dealer filed appeals before the Tribunal. Tribunal allowed the appeal and also allowed the claim of exemption against the alleged Form 3-C (2). Tribunal held that both the parties were registered dealer and Form was issued before cancellation of registration on 13.11.1991 and before the order of Commissioner of Trade Tax dated 23.1.1992, by which, Form was declared invalid. Tribunal further observed that Mandi Samiti fee was paid by the dealer and the department failed to establish that the Form was forged.
Heard Counsel for the parties.
Learned Standing Counsel submitted that the Tribunal being last court of fact, should advert to the finding recorded by the First Appellate Authority which the Tribunal has not done. He submitted that the reasons given by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeal) for remanding the case back to the Assessing Officer had not been considered, therefore, the order of Tribunal is vitiated.
I have perused the order of Tribunal and the authorities below. I find force in the argument of learned Standing Counsel. Perusal of order shows that the findings recorded by the First Appellate Authority, has not been adverted at all, therefore, order of Tribunal is vitiated. The same is accordingly set aside.
In the result, revision is allowed. Order of Tribunal is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal to decide the appeal afresh.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.