Court No. - 7
Case :- SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 969 of 2007 Applicant :- M/S Gitanjali Plastics Private Limited Opposite Party :- Commissioner Of Trade Tax U.P., Lucknow Counsel for Opposite Party :- S.C.
And Case :- SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 970 of 2007 Applicant :- M/S Gitanjali Plastics Private Limited Opposite Party :- Commissioner Of Trade Tax U.P., Lucknow Counsel for Opposite Party :- S.C.
Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.
Pursuant to the order dated 16.11.2017 notices were issued to the revisionists to engage another counsel, since learned counsel for the revisionist has been elevated to the Bench.
As per office report dated 12.2.2018, the notice was received back with the remark " Sahi Pata Na Hone Se Vapis".
By order dated 21.2.2018, fresh notices were directed to be issued to the Director of the revisionist Company.
As per office report dated 16.4.2018, neither acknowledgement nor undelivered cover has been received back.
By order dated 18.4.2018, the office was directed to submit a fresh report clearly indicating as to whether the notice pursuant to the order dated 21.2.2018 was sent to the revisionist at the address of its Director as mentioned in the memo of revision.
As per office report dated 24.4.2018 fresh notice was issued to the Director, Sri Anoop Saxena at his address, as given in the memo of revision.
By order dated 25.4.2018, the notice sent to the Director, Sri Anoop Saxena at the given address, was received back undelivered with the remark dated 11.5.2018, that "No such Person."
Both the revisions arise from the common order of the Tribunal dated 9.5.2007 passed in Second Appeal Nos. 591,592 and 593 of 2001 relating to the Assessment Years 1983-84, 1984-85 and 1985-86, under Section 4B (5) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act.
Revision No.969 of 2007 relates to penalty of Rs. 1,27,3171 for the Assessment Year 1984-85, while Revision No.970 of 2007 relates to penalty of Rs.2,10,687/- for the Assessment Year 1983- 84, under Section 4B(5) of the Act.
It appears that the penalty was imposed upon the revisionist on the ground that while it was registered for the notified goods i.e. packing material, yet he used the raw material in manufacture of plastic cane and thus, he evaded tax by taking benefit of exemption on purchase of raw material used in manufacture of a different goods.
Since, no one appears on behalf of the the revisionist to dispute the findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal, therefore, both the revisions are dismissed on the ground that the controversy is concluded by findings of fact. However, liberty is granted to the revisionists to move a recall application for recall of this order within 30 days, if according to the revisionists a question of law is involved in both the revisions.
Order Date :- 28.5.2018 Ak/