1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad
  4. /
  5. 2002
  6. /
  7. January

Commissioner, Trade Tax vs Saket Surgicals India Pvt. Ltd.

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad|24 May, 2002


JUDGMENT I.M. Quddusi, J.
1. This revision has been filed against the order dated August 24, 1998 passed by the President, Trade Tax Tribunal, Lucknow, in appeal No. 137 of 1997 under section 4-A of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948.
2. The question of law involved in this revision is that whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that use of third party generator, whether old or new, on monthly rent for running the industry, was proper and valid when the electricity connection was liable to be in the name of the firm/director/proprietor/partner of the firm as per scheme of Section 4-A of the U.P. Trade Tax Act.
3. The facts of the case are that the opposite party which is a registered dealer under the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), made its first sale with effect from January 7, 1989. It is alleged that the application of the opposite party under Section 4-A of the Act was initially rejected on August 25, 1993 which was later on allowed on review by the Divisional Level Committee with effect from April 24, 1989, i.e., the date of registration under the Factories Act to December 23, 1991 with, i.e., the date of electric disconnection, vide order dated January 28, 1995. Thereafter, the production of the opposite party could not run after December 23, 1991, i.e., the date of disconnection of the electricity. Feeling aggrieved by order dated January 28, 1995 the opposite party filed an appeal No. 137 of 1997 before the Tribunal which allowed the eligibility of tax vide its judgment dated August 24, 1998 and directed the D.L.C. to issue a revised eligibility certificate to the appellant for the period with effect from January 7, 1989 till November 30, 1992, within two months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order, holding that it was immaterial as to from which source the energy was taken by the appellant-opposite party for running the unit. Hence this revision.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the revisionist and the opposite party.
5. It has been stated on behalf of the revisionist that the order of the D.L.C. is correct because the electric connection of the unit was disconnected as such the exemption under Section 4-A of the Act can only be granted till the unit was run by its own source of energy provided by the electricity department.
6. Now it is to be seen that in the instant case the electricity is supplied by two sources--one is by the electricity supply company and the other is through generator. The equipment used by the electricity company also generates electricity and the generator used in the factory also generates electricity. In both the cases, the factory consumes electricity. Hence, in the opinion of this Court, it is immaterial as to whether the electricity is consumed by the electricity company or by the supply through use of generator. In both the cases the electricity is supplied through machinery and as while consuming the electricity supplied by the electricity supply company, it is not seen whether the electricity supply company has used the old machinery or the new, then in case the electricity is consumed by taking supply from the generator, only the condition of generator, i.e., whether it is new or old, should be seen. The factory is concerned with the use of electricity and not with the source of generator of electricity. Therefore, the machinery by which the electricity is generated is not material in consuming the electricity by the factory. The electric connection supplied by the electric supply company should be in the name of its firm/director/proprietor/partner as per scheme under Section 4-A of the Act, while in use of generator also it is the factory which consumed the electricity supply by generator and in that case also the abovementioned officers of the factories are responsible for consumption of electricity through generator.
7. In the instant case, the generator was taken on rent by the factory, i.e., the respondent at the rate of Rs. 7,000 per month, therefore it cannot be said that the consumption of electricity is not by the factory and hence, it is not very much material and is not compulsory that the electricity consumption should be only through the electric supply company and not through any other source.
8. In view of what has been discussed above, there is no merit in this revision and it is dismissed accordingly.
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.

Commissioner, Trade Tax vs Saket Surgicals India Pvt. Ltd.


High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad

24 May, 2002
  • I Quddusi