Turnover enhancement and tax refund under U.P. Trade Tax Act upheld where factual findings and invalidated refund bar controlled the dispute.

Turnover enhancement under the U.P. Trade Tax Act was not disturbed because the Tribunal's finding that the manufactured goods were excisable goods was treated as a factual determination, and no illegality was shown in revision. Refund of central sales tax collected on turnover later held exempt was also upheld because the earlier, unconstitutional version of section 29-A could not bar repayment. The later validity ruling concerning a different insertion of section 29-A did not affect the binding force of the invalidation relevant to the refund claim. The Tribunal's order was sustained on both issues.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Tribunal was justified in deleting the enhancement of turnover under the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 on the ground that the goods manufactured were excisable goods. (ii) Whether refund of the amount realised as central sales tax could be directed despite section 29-A of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948.

Issue (i): Whether the Tribunal was justified in deleting the enhancement of turnover under the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 on the ground that the goods manufactured were excisable goods.

Analysis: The revision arose from the assessment under the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948. The Tribunal had examined the record and the surrounding circumstances and found no justification for enhancement of turnover because the goods manufactured by the dealer were excisable goods. The finding was treated as one of fact, and no illegality was found in the Tribunal's approach.

Conclusion: The Tribunal's deletion of the turnover enhancement was upheld and the objection of the Revenue failed.

Issue (ii): Whether refund of the amount realised as central sales tax could be directed despite section 29-A of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948.

Analysis: The tax amount had been collected on a turnover later held exempt under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. Although refund had been denied by invoking section 29-A, the Court held that the earlier unconstitutional version of section 29-A, introduced by section 15 of the U.P. Sales Tax (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1971, could not bar refund. The later validity ruling concerning a different insertion of section 29-A did not defeat the binding effect of the earlier declaration invalidating the relevant provision under which the refund was withheld. The Tribunal was therefore correct in ordering refund.

Conclusion: The direction for refund was upheld and the Revenue's challenge failed.

Final Conclusion: Both revisions were rejected, with the result that the assessee succeeded on both controversies and the Tribunal's order was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: A refund cannot be withheld under a provision that stood invalidated for the relevant statutory insertion, and a Tribunal's factual finding against turnover enhancement will not be interfered with in revision absent illegality.

---