Dealer definition exclusion for agricultural produce did not justify revision; no question of law arose under Section 58.

The proviso to the definition of "dealer" under the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008 excludes a non-body corporate selling agricultural or horticultural produce grown by himself or on land in which he has an interest. The assessee invoked that exclusion in relation to produce stored and sold from such land, but the seizure order and appellate record did not show that the foundational facts were addressed. On that basis, the Court held that the revision did not disclose any question of law arising from the Tribunal's order, so interference under Section 58 was not warranted and the assessee's contention failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether a person storing and selling agricultural produce grown by himself or on land in which he has an interest falls outside the definition of dealer under the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008, and whether the revision disclosed any question of law warranting interference under Section 58.

Analysis: The definition of dealer in Section 2(h) includes persons carrying on business in goods, but its proviso excludes a non-body corporate who sells agricultural or horticultural produce grown by himself or on land in which he has an interest. On the facts noticed from the seizure order and the appellate record, the authorities had not addressed this foundational question. In that setting, the Court found that the dispute did not present any issue in the Tribunal's order that could justify framing of a question of law in revision.

Conclusion: The assessee's contention based on the proviso to the definition of dealer did not succeed, and no question of law arose for interference under Section 58.

---