Heard learned counsel for the assessee and the learned standing counsel for the State. This revision has been filed by the assessee under Section 11 of the U.P.Trade Tax Act for the assessment year 1985-86 against the order of the Tribunal dated 27.12.1999.
The questions of law referred to are hereunder: "I. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was correct to hold that freight and insurance charges were part of the taxable turnover, contrary to the view that was taken by this Hon'ble Court in the case reported in 115 STC page 444 ?
II. Whether the Tribunal was correct to hold that freight and insurance charges were not separately charged by the applicant in accordance with Section 2(i) of the Act, whereas in the earlier assessment years a contrary view had been taken by this Hon'ble Court to the effect that they were not part of taxable turnover ?
III. Whether the learned Trade Tax Tribunal was correct to tax the freight and insurance charges as part of taxable turnover, specially when the same were separately charged and maintained in the books of account in the same manner and style in this year as was charged in the assessment years 1983-84 and 1984-85 ?
IV. Whether in the alternative, the Tribunal was correct not to consider that the applicant was bonafidely agitating the fact that the freight and insurance charges were not the part of taxable turnover, as has been held in the assessment years 1983-84 and 1984-85 and therefore, the interest under Section 8(1) cannot be imposed ?" In so far as the question Nos.I, II and III are concerned, it is fully established from the facts and the circumstances of the case that the assessee was not able to establish that freight and insurance were separately charged. In fact the finding recorded by the Tribunal is that freight and insurance were included in the contract itself, which was a composite contract. In respect of question No.IV, the question does not arise because the same was not agitated before the 1st Appellate Authority or the Tribunal.
In view of the aforesaid there is no merit in this revision. It is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 12.1.2010 AKJ