Court No. - 59
Case :- SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 164 of 2009 Revisionist :- M/S Fabrico India P Ltd Opposite Party :- The Commissioner Of Commercial Tax U.P. Lucknow Counsel for Revisionist :- Rakesh Ranjan Agrawal,Suyash Agarwal Counsel for Opposite Party :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. Heard Sri Rakesh Ranjan Agrawal, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Ms. Mahima Jaiswal, learned counsel for the applicant-assessee and Sri B.K. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the revenue.
2. The present revision has been filed by the assessee against the order of the Commercial Tax Tribunal, Meerut dated 07.01.2009 passed in Second Appeal No. 573 of 2003 for A.Y. 1998-99 (Central). By that order, the Tribunal has allowed the appeal filed by the revenue and confirmed the enhancement of tax liability made by the assessing officer rejecting Form-D submitted by the assessee [issued by the Food Corporation of India (FCI in short)].
3. During the assessment year in question, the assessee was engaged in the activity of sale of tubular structure. Amongst others, it made sale of tubular structure worth Rs.7,56,000/- to the FCI, charging concessional rate of tax on the promise of being issued Form-D. Such Form-D were also issued by the FCI. However, the assessing officer did not give the benefit of such forms on the reasoning that the FCI was not a Government and therefore, not entitled to make purchases at concessional rate against Forms-D issued under the Central Act. Thereafter, the assessee filed an application under Section 22 of the Act, seeking deletion of benefit of Forms-D. It was rejected. The appeal filed against rejection of application filed under Section 22 of the Act, came to be allowed by the first appeal authority. However, upon further appeal, the Tribunal rejected the same, on the reasoning that the mistake was not rectifiable. In the present case, clearly, FCI was not a Government but only a Government Corporation. Therefore, the assessing officer had not made any mistake in refusing benefit of Form-D to the assessee.
4. In that regard, learned Standing Counsel has placed reliance on a decision of Madras High Court taking a similar view in Indian Steel Rolling Mills Vs. The State of Madras, (1974) 34 STC 445.
5. In view of the above, the present revision lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 27.9.2019 Abhilash