High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
M/S Tannery And Footwear Corporation Of India Ltd. v. Commissioner Of Trade Tax,U.P.Lucknow - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 10 of 1997  RD-AH 482 (22 February 2005)
TRADE TAX REVISION NO.10 of 1997
TRADE TAX REVISION NO.11 of 1997
M/S Tannery and Footwear Corporation of India Ltd., Kanpur Applicant
The Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P., Lucknow. Opp.party
Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.
Present two revisions under Section 11 of U.P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as "Act") are directed against the order of Tribunal dated 18th September, 1996 relating to the assessment years, 1984-85 and 1985-86.
Applicant was involved in the manufacturing of shoes and applied for and granted recognition certificate under section 4-B of the Act for the purchase of .raw materials at a concessional rate of tax. Applicant had submitted a list of raw material and the packing material required to be used in the manufacturing of notified goods which have been considered and recognition certificate in respect thereof was issued. Admittedly, shoe upper was not mentioned as raw material in the list. Shoe upper was added in the list of raw material with effect from 12th February, 1988. However, applicant had made purchases of shoe upper against Form 3-B, during the year under consideration and availed the benefit of concessional rate of tax. Assessing authority initiated proceeding under section 3-B of the Act on the ground that the applicant had wrongly issued Form 3-B in respect of the purchases of shoe upper and had wrongly availed the benefit of concessional rate of tax though the shoe upper was not mentioned in the list of raw material in respect of which recognition certificate under section 4-B of the Act was issued. After hearing the applicant the order under section 3-B of the Act was passed and demand was raised. Matter went to the Tribunal. Tribunal upheld the order of the authorities below and rejected the appeal.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that there is no dispute that the shoe upper was raw material of the shoe and, therefore, if Form 3-B was issued for the purchases of shoe upper, it can not be said false or wrong. Therefore, the order passed under section 3-B of the Act was not justified. Learned Standing Counsel supported the order of Tribunal.
I have perused the order of Tribunal and the authorities below.
The applicant was entitled to avail the benefit of concessional rate of tax in respect of only those items for which recognition certificate was issued and the items which was not mentioned in the recognition certificate, dealer was not entitled to avail the benefit of concessional rate of tax. Admittedly, shoe upper was not mentioned as a raw material and, therefore, the applicant was not entitled to avail the benefit of concessional rate of tax. Shoe upper was added in the recognition certificate w.e.f. 12.02.1988, therefore, for the period prior to 12.02.1988 dealer was not entitled to avail the benefit of concessional rate of tax. Thus, form issued which making the purchase of shoe upper for the period in dispute was wrong and false and the order passed under section 3-B of the Act was in accordance to law. In the circumstances, I do not find any error in the order of Tribunal and the same is accordingly upheld.
In the result, both the revisions fail and are accordingly, dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.