Court No. - 28
Case :- SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 70 of 2019 Applicant :- M/S Usha Mines Opposite Party :- The Commissioner, Commercial Taxes U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Shubham Agrawal Counsel for Opposite Party :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
Heard Sri Shubham Agarwal, learned counsel for the revisionist-assessee and Sri Bipin Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent.
The revisionist is a registered dealer and is engaged in the business of mining of white stone grits (Gitti). An assessment was made for the year 2013-14 in which the revisionist has disclosed the rate @ Rs.269.60 per cubic meter. The assessing authority imposed a tax liability on the revisionist.
Aggrieved by order dated 15.3.2018, the revisionist filed first appeal. The first appellate authority by judgment and order dated 14.9.2018 recorded a finding that the cost of stone grits per cubic meter was Rs.300/-.
Aggrieved by the said order, the revisionist filed second appeal before the Commercial Tax Tribunal, Allahabad, which was rejected by order impugned dated 4.1.2019. The contention of the revisionist counsel is that in another matter of one Varun Kumar, the Tribunal held the price of stone grits (Gitti) to be Rs.220/- per cubic meter, as such, he should also be given the benefit in terms of the judgment of Varun Kumar.
Sri Bipin Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents contends that the matter is concluded by finding of fact and further the assessee himself has disclosed the price of the stone grits (Gitti) at Rs.269.60 per cubic metre, as such he can not claim parity with the judgment of Varun Kumar @ Rs.220/- per cubic.
Considering the rival submissions of the parties and perusing the record of the case, I find that the argument of learned standing counsel has substance as it is the case of the revisionist himself that the price of white stone grits (Gitti) was Rs.269.60 per cubic meter, as such, he cannot be given the benefit of judgment of Varun Kumar in which the price was to be at Rs.220/- per cubic meter, which is against the price so disclosed by the assessee himself. Further, as the matter is concluded by finding of fact, as both the first appellate authority as well as the Tribunal has rejected the claim of the revisionist, I find no ground to interfere in the matter.
The revision is devoid of merit and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 26.2.2019 AKJ