2008 (7) TMI 887 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Court rules in favor of applicant for exemption certificate under U.P. Trade Tax Act

Shikhar Chand Pradeep Kumar Versus Commissioner of Trade Tax, UP., Lucknow

Shikhar Chand Pradeep Kumar Versus Commissioner of Trade Tax, UP., Lucknow - [2009] 23 VST 99 (All) Issues:1. Eligibility for exemption certificate under section 4A of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948.2. Interpretation of the term 'applies' in section 4A(5)(a) of the Act.3. Presumption of service under section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897.4. Effective date for eligibility certificate and modification in the certificate.Detailed Analysis:1. The judgment revolves around the eligibility of an applicant for an exemption certificate under section 4A of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948. The applicant, established in June 1994, applied for exemption within the statutory period. The Tribunal initially granted the eligibility certificate from December 26, 1995, to June 21, 2002. However, the applicant sought a review for an earlier effective date, which was dismissed. Subsequently, the Tribunal amended the certificate to be effective from February 6, 1995, the date of the second application.2. The issue of interpreting the term 'applies' in section 4A(5)(a) of the Act was raised. The applicant had sent the application via registered post on December 6, 1994, within the six-month period from the date of production. The Postal Department returned the application due to a strike of State Government employees. The Tribunal contended that the application was not filed within the time limit. However, the High Court disagreed, emphasizing that the applicant had fulfilled its obligation under the circumstances, and the presumption of service applied under the Evidence Act, 1872.3. Regarding the presumption of service under section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, the Court held that sending the application by registered post created a presumption of service if correctly addressed. Despite the return of the application, the applicant had done all that was possible given the strike situation. The Court emphasized that no person can be compelled to perform an impossible act, and in this case, the applicant had met its obligations, leading to a ruling in favor of the applicant.4. The judgment addressed the effective date for the eligibility certificate and modification in the certificate. The Court cited a previous case to support the argument that temporary registration sufficed for claiming exemption. Ultimately, the Court ruled in favor of the applicant, holding that the application was made within the prescribed period. The Tribunal was directed to issue a consequential order under section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, with no costs awarded.