High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
The Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P. Lucknow v. S/S Speed House, Sheepri Basar Jhansi - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION DEFECTIVE No. 1751 of 1998  RD-AH 3612 (26 September 2005)
TRADE TAX REVISION NO.(1751) OF 1998
The Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P. Lucknow. ....Applicant
S/S Speed House, Jhansi. ....Opp. Party
Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.
Present revisions under section 11 of U.P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as "Act") is directed against the order of Tribunal dated 30.06.1998 for the assessment year 1990-91.
Dealer/opposite party (hereinafter referred to as "Dealer") was carrying on the business of motor-cycle, tempo, motor-car chassis and their spare parts etc. During the year under consideration, dealer had made purchases of 6 tempo chassis against Form 3-A and sold thereafter mounting of body as a tempo. It was claimed by the dealer that the bill of chassis and body have been separately issued alongwith mounting charges and, therefore, it should be treated that the chassis were sold in same form and condition. Assessing authority had not accepted the plea of the dealer and held that the chassis were not sold in the same form and condition but had been sold in the form of tempo after mounting the body over it and accordingly, tax under section 3-AAAA of the Act had been levied on the purchases of chassis. Order of the assessing authority has been confirmed in appeal in this regard. Dealer filed appeal before the Tribunal. Tribunal by the impugned order allowed the appeal and held that merely because the body was mounted on chassis it does not amount to manufacturing of new product. Tribunal has also observed that separate bill for chassis and product were raised. Tribunal accordingly, deleted the tax levied under section 3-AAAA of the Act.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Learned Standing Counsel submitted that all the authorities found that tempo chassis were sold after mounting of body in the form of tempo auto-rickshaw. Assessing authority found that in the bill mounting charges have also been charged alongwith value of chassis and body. Thus, it is clear that chassis in which form and condition they were purchased had not been sold and had been sold in the form of complete auto-rickshaw. Chassis and complete auto-rickshaw after mounting of body over the chassis can not be said to be same commodity. They are known differently as two different commodity. In any view of the matter it can not be said that the chassis were sold in the same form and condition in which they were purchased. Therefore, the provisions of section 3-AAAA of the Act is applicable. Tribunal has erred in deleting the tax under section 3-AAAA of the Act. In the case of CST Vs. Kumar Motors, Bareilly, reported in 2004 UPTC, 1010 chassis purchased against Forrm-3A was sold in the form of auto-rickshaw after mounting of body has been held as different commodity and not in the same form and condition and the levy of tax on the purchases of chassis under section 3-AAAA of the Act has been upheld. This case is fully applicable in the present case.
In the result, revision is allowed. Order of the tribunal is set aside. So far as it deleted the tax under section 3-AAAA of the Act is concerned Tribunal is directed to pass appropriate order under section 11 (8) of the Act.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.