High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
The Commissioner Trade U.P.Lucknow v. S/S U.P.Steel Pvt.Ltd.Nara,Muzaffarnagar - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION DEFECTIVE No. 519 of 1999  RD-AH 126 (2 January 2006)
Court no. 55
Trade Tax Revision no. (519) Of 1999.
The Commissioner of Trade Tax, U. P. Lucknow. ... Applicant.
M/S U. P. Steels Pvt. Ltd., Muzaffarnagar. ... Opp. Party.
Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.
Present revision under Section 11 of U.P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as "Act") is directed against the order of Tribunal dated 09.03.1999 relating to the assessment year 1976-77 under the U. P. Trade Tax Act.
It appears that the dealer had purchased Iron & Steel for Rs.3,72,737.94 against Form 3-A. Such Steel was to be sold in the same form and condition and instead of selling it, in the same form and condition, used in the manufacturing of Iron Ingot. In the original assessment order, Assessing Authority could not levy any tax under Section 3-AAAA on the purchases of Rs.3,72,737.94, thus, an order under Section 22 of the Act was passed and the tax on the amount of Rs.3,72,737.94 was levied. Order passed under Section 22 was confirmed by the Asstt. Commissioner (Judl.), Trade Tax, Muzaffarnagar. Second Appeal filed by the dealer was allowed and the order passed under Section 22 of the Act was set aside. Tribunal has set aside the order passed under Section 22 of the Act on the ground that to levy tax on the turnover, provisions of Section 21 should be invoked and not the Section 22 of the Act.
Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
Learned Standing Counsel submitted that there was no dispute of fact. He submitted that admittedly Iron & Steel was purchased against Form 3-A and was used in the manufacturing of Iron Ingots and was not sold in the same form and condition, therefore no investigation of fact and debate was involved, and mistake being apparent on the face of record, was rectifiable under Section 22 of the Act. Learned Counsel for the dealer relied upon the order of Tribunal.
I have perused the order of Tribunal and the authorities below. I find substance in the argument of learned Standing Counsel. Under Section 22 of the Act, mistake apparent on the face of record, can be rectified, and tax can be levied if there is no dispute of fact and no investigation of fact is required and on the fact, tax is leviable. Such mistake can be said to be an apparent mistake and the provision of Section 22 of the Act can be invoked. Tribunal is wrong in saying that for the purposes of levy of tax on the turnover on which, tax was leviable, only provision of Section 21 could be invoked. Tribunal should have adjudicated whether on the facts, provisions of Section 22 applies or not. If no investigation of fact is required and the mistake is apparent on the face of record, the provisions of Section 22 of the Act is applicable. In the circumstances, Tribunal should adjudicate the issue afresh in the light of observations made above.
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.