Allahabad High Court
The Commissioner Trade Tax U.P. Lucknow vs S/S. Foremost Industries (India) Ltd. ... on 2 April, 2010
Author: Bharati Sapru
Bench: Bharati Sapru
Court No. - 33 Case :- SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 334 of 2003 Petitioner :- The Commissioner Trade Tax U.P. Lucknow Respondent :- S/S. Foremost Industries (India) Ltd. Kailashpur,Saharanpur Petitioner Counsel :- C.S.C. Respondent Counsel :- Ashok Kumar Hon'ble Bharati Sapru,J.
Heard learned standing counsel for the State and Sri Ashok Kumar for the assessee.
This revision has been filed by the State under Section 11(1) of the U.P.Trade Tax Act for the assessment year 1990-91 against the order of the Tribunal dated 27.11.2002. The questions of law referred to are hereunder:
"(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Trade Tax Tribunal has correctly accepted the dealer's account books inspite of the fact a number of discrepancies and sufficient adverse material was there available on record exhibited by various surveys ?
(ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Trade Tax Tribunal has correctly applied the judgment of Hon'ble High Court in the matter of Commissioner, Sales Tax, U.P. vs. Gauraya Straw and Card Board Mill, Kashipur, 1999 U.P.T.C. 1111 (Supra) while deciding the taxability of the rice husk ?
(iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Trade Tax Tribunal has correctly decided the taxability of rice husk in view of the judgment of Hon'ble High Court in the matter of Commissioner, Sales Tax, U.P. vs. Navin Traders, 1973 U.P.T.C.-215 ?
(iv) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Trade Tax Tribunal has correctly utilized the material available on record ?"
The Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the assessee was not liable to pay tax on paddy husk which had been purchased by it as fuel. The Tribunal has also accepted the books of account of the assessee. I see no reason to interfere in the order passed by the Tribunal.
In view of the above, the order of the Tribunal is justified. No question of law arises. I see no reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal.
This revision is dismissed. No costs.
Order Date :- 2.4.2010 AKJ