Court No. - 1
Case :- SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 1733 of 2007 Revisionist :- M/S Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. Opposite Party :- Commissioner Trade Tax Counsel for Revisionist :- Shakeel Ahmad Counsel for Opposite Party :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. Heard Shri Shakeel Ahmad, learned counsel for the applicant-assessee and Shri B.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the revenue.
2. Present revision has been filed by the assessee against the order of the Trade Tax Tribunal, Saharanpur dated 27.08.2007 in Second Appeal No. 21 of 2005 for A.Y. 2001-02.
3. The present revision has been pressed on the following questions of law:
"(A). Whether upon the facts and circumstances of the case, the amount received for providing tender forms to customers be termed as sale within the meaning of Section 3 F of the U.P. Trade Tax Act?
(B). Whether upon the facts and circumstances of the case, the supply of cement and iron to contractors for construction of building and adjusted at the time of payment to them be termed as sale?
(C). Whether upon the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in confirming the tax on machineries given to other Chini Mills and returned to Revisionist after use, treating the same as sale?
(D). Whether upon the facts and circumstances of the case, the imposition of tax on purchases made from unregistered dealers can be subjected to tax within the meaning of Section 3 AAAA of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, despite the disclosed production has been accepted by the assessing authority?
(E). Whether upon the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law while confirming the imposition of interest @ 2% on alleged admitted tax, which is against the facts of the case?"
4. The aforesaid questions of law are common to questions of law nos. (A) to (D) framed in Sales/Trade Tax Revision No. 1394 of 2007 (M/s. Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Trade Tax, U.P., Lucknow) for A.Y. 2000- 01 (U.P.). The only difference in the two revisions is the numbering of the questions. However, all four questions raised in the present revision are common to Sales/Trade Tax Revision No. 1394 of 2007 which has been decided today (31.07.2019) by a separate order. Thus, question nos. (A) to (D) are answered in the affirmative, i.e. in favour of the revenue and against the assessee.
5. Insofar as question no. (E) is concerned, though question nos.
(A) to (D) have been decided against the assessee and in favour of the revenue, yet, it is seen that nowhere in its books of accounts, the assessee admitted liability of tax except for the addition on account of sale of tender forms. All remaining liabilities were disputed. Accordingly, except for the tax liability on sale of tender forms, the assessee will not be subject to interest liability treating the tax to be admitted liability, rather it would be liable to pay interest treating those liabilities to be disputed tax liabilities. Thus, question no. (E) is answered in the negative, i.e. in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.
6. The revision is partly allowed.
Order Date :- 31.7.2019 AHA