TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>High Court affirms Tribunal decisions on Trade Tax Revision cases; refund ordered, turnover enhancement denied.</h1> <h3>Commissioner, Trade Tax, UP., Lucknow Versus Rampur Distillery and Chemicals Co. Ltd.</h3> Commissioner, Trade Tax, UP., Lucknow Versus Rampur Distillery and Chemicals Co. Ltd. - [2003] 133 STC 172 (All) Issues:1. Interpretation of turnover under the U.P. Trade Tax Act for the assessment year 1978-79.2. Refund of Central sales tax under the Central Sales Tax Act.Analysis:1. The first issue in this judgment pertains to the interpretation of turnover under the U.P. Trade Tax Act for the assessment year 1978-79. The Tribunal had enhanced the turnover under the U.P. Trade Tax Act based on factors like excess loss of molasses. However, upon review, the High Court found that the goods manufactured by the assessee were excisable goods, and therefore, there was no justification for the turnover enhancement. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that it was a finding of fact and no illegality was found in the Tribunal's conclusion. Consequently, Trade Tax Revision No. 196 of 1995, related to the U.P. Trade Tax Act assessment, was dismissed.2. The second issue revolves around the refund of Rs. 1,18,033.56, which was the tax realized by the dealer on account of Central sales tax and paid to the State treasury on rectified spirit. The turnover in question was deemed exempt under the Central Sales Tax Act. However, the sum deposited by the assessee was initially declined to be refunded citing section 29-A of the U.P. Trade Tax Act. The Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision, but the Tribunal directed the refund. The High Court delved into the constitutionality of section 29-A, citing previous judgments. It was noted that the Supreme Court had declared section 29-A, as introduced by the 1971 Act, unconstitutional. The High Court also referenced the decision in Kasturi Lal Harlal v. State of U.P., where the Supreme Court upheld the validity of section 29-A as introduced by the 1969 Amendment Act. In light of these precedents, the High Court concluded that the Tribunal was correct in ordering the refund. Consequently, Trade Tax Revision No. 197 of 1995, concerning the Central Sales Tax Act assessment, was also dismissed.In conclusion, both revision petitions were found to lack merit and were dismissed with costs.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
