Court No. - 59
Case :- SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 91 of 2019 Revisionist :- The Commissioner, Commercial Tax U.P.
Opposite Party :- S/S U.P. Township Pvt. Ltd.
Counsel for Revisionist :- Bipin Kumar Pandey
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. The present revision has been filed by the revenue against the order of the Trade Tax Tribunal, Noida dated 30.11.2017 in Second Appeal No.545 of 2015 for A.Y. 2008-09 (U.P.). By that order, the Tribunal has partly allowed the assessee's appeal and provided that for the purposes of determination of turnover of transfer of property in the execution of works contract, 10% be added towards freight, profit and expense, to the purchase value of such goods.
2. The present revision has been pressed on the following questions of law:-
"I. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the Commercial Tax Tribunal was legally justified in adding in lieu of expenses, freight and profit, @ 10% although in view of notification dated 27.02.1997 it was liable to be added @ 20%?
II. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the Commercial Tax Tribunal was legally justified in reducing the amount of 20% to 10% as profit and other expenses without recording any reason?"
3. Heard Sri Bipin Kumar Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the revenue.
4. According to the learned Standing Counsel, the standard addition to be made @ 20% on account of freight charges, necessary expenses and reasonable profit. The Tribunal has without adverting to the facts of the present case blindly applied a decision passed in the case of another dealer and reduced that addition to half.
5. Though, the submission advanced may have some weight, however, it cannot be lost site of the disputed tax involved in the present revision does not exceed Rs.2,06,000/-. Thus, keeping in mind the petty nature of the tax dispute, the present revision is being dismissed as lacking in substance, inasmuch as, the Tribunal has made one estimate of the turnover while the other was offered by the revenue authorities. However as to the question of law proposed, the same is left open by the revenue in appropriate case.
6. The delay in filing the revision is not satisfactorily explained, inasmuch as, the impugned order is of the year 2012 whose certified copy is stated to have been obtained on 24.04.2019. Still the revision has been filed with a delay of 28 days.
7. Accordingly, the present revision as also the delay condonation application no.2 of 2019 is
dismissed.
Order Date :- 22.8.2019 S.Chaurasia