TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Trade tax rebate claim revision allowed after tribunal rejected case for lack of documentation</h1> <h3>M/s Food Corporation Of India Lucknow Asst. General Manager Versus Commissioner Of Commercial Tax U.P. Lucknow</h3> Allahabad HC allowed revision in trade tax rebate claim case. Petitioner purchased food grains from State agency paying 4% trade tax and sought rebate ... Rebate claim - purchase of food grains from the State agency on which 4% trade tax was paid - Notification dated 21.05.1994. Tribunal while rejecting the said revision has noticed that the revisionist could not produced any document to indicate that the wheat sold to the roller flour mills was from the wheat on which tax had already been paid and merely on the said basis rejected the revision preferred by the revisionist. HELD THAT:- The goods supplied to the roller flour mills were in fact goods on which tax had already been paid tax @ 4%. This fact is also evident from the order of assessing authority, but relevant documents could not be produced by the revisionist before the assessing authority. In the said situation, it would be in fitness of things that an opportunity is given to him to demonstrate that the goods supplied to the roller flour mills is covered by Notification dated 21.05.1984 and the conditions made therein are fulfilled. With a view to giving opportunity to the revisionist to demonstrate the fulfillment of the conditions prescribed in the aforesaid order, the matter is accordingly remitted to the Trade Tax Tribunal. In the remand proceedings, the Tribunal if thinks proper may further remit the matter for the limited purpose to the assessing authority or may call for a report from the assessing authority to satisfy himself that the conditions mentioned in the Notification dated 21.05.1994 are either fulfilled or not. In case the revisionist is able to demonstrate that all the conditions of notification dated 21.05.1994 are fulfilled then the Tribunal shall proceed to pass orders accordingly. Considering that much time has lapsed since pendency of the present revision, it is provided that necessary orders may be passed expeditiously, say, within a period of six months from the date of a certified copy of this order is produced before him. Revision allowed. Issues involved:The judgment involves the rejection of a second appeal by the revisionist against the order of the Commercial Tax Tribunal regarding the assessment year 2000-01.Details of the Judgment:1. Facts and Background:The revisionist, a Central Government Undertaking, is a registered dealer under the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008, involved in procuring and distributing food grains under various control orders and schemes.2. Dispute and Assessment:The dispute arose during the assessment year 2000-01 when the revisionist claimed to have purchased food grains for a specified amount on which 4% trade tax was paid.3. Notification and Rebate Issue:A notification dated 21.05.1994 provided for a 2% rebate on the turnover of first purchase of goods if certain conditions were met, including obtaining Form 3B and dealing with declared goods liable to tax.4. Assessment and Rejection of Rebate:The Assessing Officer disallowed the rebate as the revisionist failed to produce documents proving that the goods sold were previously taxed. The first and second appeals were also rejected.5. Judicial Review and Remand:The Tribunal rejected the revisionist's appeal based on lack of evidence. The High Court remitted the matter back to the Tribunal to allow the revisionist to demonstrate compliance with the conditions of the notification.6. Opportunity for Revisionist:The High Court directed the Tribunal to give the revisionist an opportunity to prove that the goods supplied were covered by the notification, with a provision for further remand to the assessing authority if necessary.7. Decision and Timeframe:The High Court allowed the revision, setting aside the Tribunal's order, and instructed for expeditious resolution within six months from the date of the order.This summary encapsulates the key issues, facts, legal provisions, and the court's decision in the judgment, providing a comprehensive overview of the case.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
