1995 (7) TMI 374

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r the applicant as well as Mr. R.D. Gupta, learned Standing Counsel for the opposite party and perused the material brought on record. The revisionist is a public limited company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at N-225, Greater Kailash I, New Delhi 110 048 and has got its factory at C-100, Sector II, NOIDA, district Ghaziabad for the manufacture and production of the electronic typewriters. The company having its new industrial unit in the State of Uttar Pradesh was granted eligibility certificate for exemption from sales tax under section 4-A of the Act for a period of four years with effect from July 26, 1985 but it was confined to May 30, 1986. No reason was however given in the eligibi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Then the applicant filed an appeal before the Trade Tax Tribunal, Lucknow, which after hearing the parties, allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the Chairman, NOIDA, for readjudication by a speaking order. The applicant has now filed this revision for the reason that the Tribunal was itself competent to record a finding of fact and the remand order is illegal on the face of the record.   Mr. Bharat Ji Agrawal, contended that the entire material was available with the Tribunal which was competent to record a finding of fact about the closure of the industrial unit for a continuous period of more than six months, but the Tribunal has committed illegality in remanding the matter again to the Chairman, NOIDA which has already ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e discharge of statutory duty in fiscal matters cannot be lightly distrusted and ignored. There is a legal presumption under section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act that official acts have been regularly performed. Such a legal presumption cannot be rebutted by mere scepticism of the local officer. However despite the adverse inference drawn by the officers there remains a fact that there was a statement of public servant available on record who could speak to the best about the manufacture and production or closure thereof for any period whatsoever. If the officers and the Chairman, NOIDA have not been able to appreciate this material on record properly according to the accepted principles of evaluation, the Tribunal was itself competent to....