Court No. - 38
Case :- SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 591 of 2013 Revisionist :- The Commissioner Commercial Tax U.P. Lucknow Opposite Party :- S/S P.C.B. India Pvt. Ltd. Ghaziabad Counsel for Revisionist :- S.C.
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Krishna Agrawal
Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.
Heard Sri Jagdish Mishra, learned Standing Counsel for the revisionist and Sri Krishna Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondent.
This is a revision filed under Section 58 of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008 challenging the order passed by the Additional Commissioner Grade-II (Appeal)-4, Commercial Tax, Ghaziabad dated 4.5.2012 as well as the order passed in second appeal filed before the Commercial Tax Tribunal, Ghaziabad, Bench-2, whereby the appeal filed by the department has been rejected.
The contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that as is evident from the order passed under Section 54(1)(1)(a) of the Act imposing penalty on the assessee, the assessee had admitted that he could not deposit the tax due to the delay in obtaining payments. It is contended that the appellate authorities below have committed serious error of jurisdiction in allowing the appeal of the assessee at the first instance and rejecting the appeal of the department in the second appeal.
Sri Krishna Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondent has stated that a categorical finding has been recorded by both the appellate authorities, in which it is stated that the manufactured goods of the respondent are bio fertilizers which are exempted goods, and on them, no tax is payable. He has also contended that the appellate authorities have also noticed that the tax that was wrongly charged by the assessee would not be returned to the assessee but would be returned to the actual payer of the tax who had made payments to the assessee.
The Court is inclined to agree to the contentions made on behalf of the respondents. The factual aspect has been duly considered by the appellate authorities. The revisionist have failed to demonstrate any valid question of law that may exist in the matter. In the facts and circumstances of the case, in my opinion, no question of law arises for consideration of this Court including the one framed in the revision.
This revision is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 17.12.2021 sfa/ (Jayant Banerji, J)