Trade tax exemption for a "new unit" failed where machinery had prior use, and retrospective relief could not be raised in revision.

Eligibility for exemption under section 4A of the U.P. Trade Tax Act depended on the unit being "new", meaning its machinery had not earlier been used or acquired for use in another factory or workshop. On the findings recorded by the Commissioner and Tribunal, the machines had either been previously used in manufacture or had been obtained for use in another industrial unit before transfer on lease, and those findings were not shown to be perverse. The later insertion of section 4A(2B) could not be raised for the first time in revision on a fresh factual basis where no such claim had been advanced before the Tribunal. The eligibility certificate was therefore cancelled and the revisional challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee was entitled to exemption under section 4A of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 where the machinery installed in the unit had earlier been used by the transferor or acquired for use in another factory, and whether the later insertion of section 4A(2B) could justify a fresh claim for exemption.

Analysis: The expression "new unit" in the Explanation to section 4A required machinery or accessories not already used or acquired for use in any other factory or workshop. On the facts found by the Commissioner and the Tribunal, the machines in question had either been used earlier in manufacture or had been acquired for use in another industrial unit before being transferred to the assessee on lease. Those findings were based on record and were not shown to be perverse or unsupported by evidence. The Court held that the cited authorities did not assist the assessee because the present case involved transfer and prior use of machinery, which was not the position in those decisions. The Court further held that section 4A(2B), though later introduced with retrospective effect, could not be invoked for the first time in revision on a new factual foundation when no such claim had been raised before the Tribunal and when it would require adjudication on fresh facts.

Conclusion: The assessee was not entitled to exemption under section 4A, the cancellation of the eligibility certificate was upheld, and the revisional challenge failed.

---