Court No. - 1
Case :- SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 1852 of 2008 Revisionist :- M/S Akshaya Brick Works Opposite Party :- Commissioner Commercial Tax Counsel for Revisionist :- Raeksh Ranjan Agarwal Counsel for Opposite Party :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. Present revision has been filed by the assessee against the order of the Trade Tax Tribunal, Meerut dated 18.08.2008 in Second Appeal No. 218 of 2003 for A.Y. 1999-2000 (U.P.). By that order, the Tribunal has dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee and thus confirmed the order passed under Section 7-D of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 by which the liability to pay compounding fee in lieu of tax otherwise payable, has been enforced against the assessee despite the fact that the assessee had made an application to withdraw from compounding in view of the order passed by this Court dated 15.03.2000 in First Appeal From Order No. 222 of 2000.
2. Heard Shri Suyash Agrawal learned counsel for the assessee and Shri B.K. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the revenue.
3. Learned counsel for the assessee would submit that in view of the order passed in F.A.F.O. No. 222 of 2000, the applicant lost its right to run the brick kiln. Therefore, his application for compounding of tax liability (that would arise on running of the brick kiln), could not have been accepted and no liability to pay compounding fee could have been fastened on him, for that reason.
4. While the argument advanced by learned counsel for the assessee is attractive in first flush, however, perusal of the order of the Tribunal reveals that beside the fact that the applicant had filed the application seeking compounding before the judgment of this Court in F.A.F.O. No. 222 of 2000, however, upon a survey conducted on 08.03.2000, the assessee was found to be running the brick kiln. Also, it is a fact that the application for compounding had been made by the assessee despite the stay order granted by this Court in F.A.F.O. No. 222 of 2000. Thus, it is clear that the assessee had been found operating the brick kiln during the survey, as also the same is admitted to the assessee by virtue of his filing the application seeking compounding of the tax liability.
5. Therefore, the findings recorded by the Tribunal are findings of fact. The assessee had actually run the brick kiln contrary to the stay order passed by this Court. In such fact, I find no merit in the revision. It is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 25.7.2019 AHA