Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether turnover from rab sayar was covered by the compounding scheme for cane crushers, and whether the scheme could be extended by interpretation on the basis of Explanation I(b) to section 3D(8) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948.
Analysis: The dealer had obtained compounding under section 7D of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 for the goods specifically covered by the scheme, namely rab galavat and rab salavat. Rab sayar was not expressly included in the scheme. The Explanation to section 3D(8) for the purposes of the Act treated rab, rab sayar, rab galavat and rab salavat as different goods, but that deeming provision could not be used to enlarge the ambit of a separate compounding scheme. The court held that where a commodity is not covered by the notification or scheme, its inclusion cannot be inferred by interpretative expansion.
Conclusion: Rab sayar was not covered by the compounding scheme, and the tax on its turnover was payable; the Tribunal's contrary view was unsustainable.
Final Conclusion: The revision was allowed, the Tribunal's order was set aside, and the assessment order was restored.
Ratio Decidendi: A compounding scheme cannot be expanded by interpretation to include a commodity not expressly covered by it, even if a deeming provision under the statute treats related goods as distinct for other purposes.