Court No. - 59
Case :- SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 803 of 2008 Revisionist :- M/S Shipra Estate Ltd Opposite Party :- Commissioner Of Commercial Tax U.P. Lucknow Counsel for Revisionist :- Ashok Kumar,Praveen Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- C.S.C. And Case :- SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 804 of 2008 Revisionist :- M/S Shipra Estate Ltd Opposite Party :- Commissioner Of Commercial Tax U.P. Lucknow Counsel for Revisionist :- Ashok Kumar,Praveen Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. Heard Sri Praveen Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant- assessee and Sri B.K. Pandey learned Standing Counsel for the opposite party-revenue.
2. Revision No. 803 of 2008 and Revision No.804 of 2008 have arisen from a common order of the Trade Tax Tribunal, Ghaziabad dated 04.02.2008 in Second Appeal No.537 of 2004 for A.Y. 2001-02 and Second Appeal No.183 of 2005 for A.Y. 2002-03 respectively. By that order, the Tribunal has dismissed both the appeals.
3. Both these revisions have been pressed on the following similar questions of law:-
"A. Whether the Trade Tax Tribunal as well as the authorities below were justified in rejecting the claim of the revisionist and holding that the supply of cement, timber, iron and steel made by the revisionist to its contractor as sale under Section 2(h) read with Section 3-F of the Act?
B. Whether the Trade Tax Tribunal was not legally justified in holding that the goods supplied by the revisionist to its contractor was not covered under the provisions of Section 3, 4 and 5 of the Central Sales Tax Act?"
4. Revisions involving similar questions of contract, i.e. Revision Nos.1504 of 2008 and 1503 of 2008 inter-parties, have been dismissed by a separate order passed today (21.08.2019). In addition to the submissions advanced in those revisions, learned counsel for the assessee would submit that, during the A.Y. 2001-02 and 2002-03, the assessee had brought on record a supplementary affidavit, where-under it was specifically stipulated that the title and the goods, namely, cement would remain with the assessee. Reference has been made to the documents dated 02.08.2001, which has been annexed as Annexure-8 to the present application (in the first revision).
5. While the document annexed as Annexure-8, appears to contain a clause, as contended by learned counsel for the assessee, however, a perusal of the order of the Tribunal and the first appeal authority could not disclose that such a document was placed before those authorities. In that regard, learned counsel for the assessee further contends that the said document was before the authorities. However, it is difficult to accept the correctness of that submission in absence of any discussion contained in the orders of the authorities and in absence of any application being filed by the assessee to lead additional evidence to that effect.
6. Since the assessment order has been passed against the assessee imposing tax on sale of cement, it was for the assessee to have led evidence and in that process to rely on the document being now brought on record. The assessee has failed to lead such evidence. The plea being set up in the present revisions cannot be entertained as it would fall outside of the jurisdiction of the revision court.
7. For the reasons contained in a separate order passed today in Revision No.1504 of 2008, these revisions are also dismissed.
8. Questions of law are accordingly answered in the affirmative, i.e. in favour of the revenue and against the assessee.
Order Date :- 21.8.2019 Saif