High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Commissioner of Sales Tax, U. P. Lucknow. v. M/S Natraj Industries, Ghaziabad. - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 1520 of 1992  RD-AH 483 (9 August 2004)
Court no. 55
Sales Tax Revision no. 1520 of 1992.
Commissioner of Sales Tax, U. P. Lucknow.........................Revisionist.
M/S Natraj Industries, Ghaziabad .........................Respondent.
Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.
The present revision under Section 11 of U. P. Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as Act) is directed against the order of Tribunal dated 20.4.1992 relating to the assessment years 1984-85. The following question of law has been raised:-
"Whether the Sales Tax Tribunal was legally justified to reject the application filed by the department under Section 22 of the U. P. Sales Tax Act despite the fact that Section 3-AAAA was restored vide Notification no. 4042 (2)/17.1-2 (Ka)-46-1991 dated 12.12.91 with retrospective effect from 1.4.1974?"
Following the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Pioneer Tanneries and Glue Works, Kanpur and another Vs. State of U. P. reported in 1991 UPTC, Tribunal vide order dated 29.7.1991 deleted the tax levied under Section 3-AAAA purchased from unregistered dealer on the ground that the Division Bench has declared the Section 3-AAAA ultravires. Subsequently Section 3-AAAA was reintroduced vide Notification no. 4042(2)/17-1-2 (Ka)-46-1991 dated 12.12.1991. Applicant moved an application under Section 22 for rectification of the order dated 29.7.1991 in view of reintroduction of Section 3-AAAA with retrospective effect. Tribunal rejected the application vide order dated 20.4.1992.
Heard learned Standing Counsel.
Learned Standing Counsel submitted that this Court in the case of CST Vs. S/S Prakash Chandra Narendra Kumar, Meerut reported in 2003 UPTC page 843, held that on the basis of amendment made with retrospective effect, order passed by the authority on the basis of pre-existing law, is liable to be rectified and is to be made in conformity with the law as it stands after retrospective amendment. It is further submitted that the Division Bench decision in the case of Pioneer Tanneries and Glue Works, Kanpur and another Vs. State of U. P. reported in 1991 UPTC, has been over ruled by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hotel Balaji and others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others reported in 1993 UPTC page 318 and the provision of Section 3-AAAA as it stood even before the retrospective amendments under which tax was levied, has been held valid.
In my view, order of Tribunal can not be sustained. Following the decision of this Court in the case of CST Vs. S/S Prakash Chandra Narendra Kumar, Meerut reported in 2003 UPTC page 843 (supra) and in view of the fact that the Division Bench decision in the case of Pioneer Tanneries and Glue Works, Kanpur and another Vs. State of U. P. reported in 1991 UPTC (supra) has been over ruled by Apex Court, application filed by the Commissioner of Sales Tax under Section 22 is liable to be allowed and the order dated 29.7.1991 in Appeal no. 286 of 1990 is rectified to the extent levying tax under Section 3-AAAA on the purchases from unregistered dealer.
In the result, revision is allowed. Order dated 20.4.1992 passed by the Tribunal is set aside and order dated 29.1.1991 in Appeal no. 286 of 1990 is rectified to the extent levying tax on the turnover of Coal purchased from unregistered dealer under Section 3-AAAA.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.