Court No. - 7
Case :- SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 114 of 2008 Applicant :- M/S Bhagwati Textiles Pvt.Ltd., Varanasi Opposite Party :- Commissioner Of Trade Tax U.P. Lucknow Counsel for Applicant :- Piyush Agrawal Counsel for Opposite Party :- SC
Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.
Heard Sri Piyush Agrawal, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri B.K. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent.
This revision relates to Assessment Year 1987-88 (U.P.) and arises from the impugned order of the Tribunal dated 7.2.2001 in Second Appeal No.409 of 1995.
With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this revision is being admitted on the following question of law:
"Whether under Section 14 (iib) of the Central Sales Tax Act, what has been excluded from the cotton yarn is only yarn waste and not the yarn manufactured out of cotton waste; hence cotton yarn waste cannot be equated with cotton waste yarn ?"
No other questions have been pressed by the learned counsel for the revisionist before this Court.
Both the learned counsel for the parties jointly submit that the controversy involved in the present revision is covered inter-parties by a judgment of this Court dated 23.10.2009 in Sales/ Trade Tax Revision No.577 of 2001, which is reproduced below:
"Heard Sri Bharat Ji Agrawal, learned counsel for the assessee and Sri B.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the Department.
The question for consideration in this case is whether under section 14 (ii- b) of the Central Sales Tax Act what has been excluded from the cotton yarn is only yarn waste and not the yarn manufactured out of cotton waste, hence cotton yarn waste cannot be said to be cotton waste yarn;
Sri Bharat Ji Agrawal pointed out that between the same party, this question has been decided in favour of the dealer by judgment dated 04.10.2007 passed in Trade Tax Revision 48 (defective) of 2002 relating to the subsequent assessment year, 1991-1992 wherein it has been held that yarn manufactured out of cotton waste falls under the entry "all kinds of yarn" and is a declared commodity under section 14 (ii-b) of the Act. Sri Agrawal also states that the present dispute is squarely covered by the aforesaid decision.
Learned Standing Counsel does not dispute the same.
Respectfully, following the aforesaid decision, the present revision is partly allowed. The order of the Tribunal is set aside and the Tribunal is directed to pass fresh order under section 11 (8) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act".
In view of the aforesaid, the question framed above, is answered in favour of the assessee and against the opposite party. The revision is allowed in terms of the afore-quoted order dated 23.10.2009. The order of the Tribunal is set aside to that extent and the Tribunal is directed to pass an order under Section 11(8) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948.
Order Date :- 25.4.2018 Ak/