AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (3) TMI 444
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t, 2008. The case of the petitioner in brief is that it applied for composition of tax as was provided under section 7-D of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 and agreed to pay the trade tax at an agreed rate. In pursuance of Section 7-D of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, the State Government had promulgated a scheme for composition of tax in the year 1993 which was amended in the year 1995 and continued for the subsequent years up to 2006-2007. During the period 20062007 and 2007-2008, the petitioner was granted electrical works contracts by various dealers detailed in paragraph-6 of the writ petition. The petitioner opted for composition in respect of the aforesaid contracts by filing the requisite application for compounding. The application for co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hich also envisages the composition of tax under section 6 thereof. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents the essential facts as contained in the writ petition are not disputed. It has been set out therein that against the impugned order dated 28th of June, 2012 there is a statutory remedy of appeal and as such, the petition should not be entertained. The State Government on 9th of June, 2009 issued certain directions which provides that a decision has been taken for compounding under section 6 of the U.P. VAT Act which has come into effect from 1st of January, 2008 to 31st of March, 2008. Heard Sri Nishant Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri C.B. Tripathi, Special Standing Counsel for State of U.P....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eturns of the turnover. A dealer has to pay a fixed sum of money as tax as agreed upon by the department. It is the choice of a dealer to opt for compounded payment of tax. If the said choice is in accordance with the scheme and is ultimately accepted by the authority concerned, it becomes an agreed amount of tax. The department as well as the dealer both are bound by the said agreement. The necessary collary of this is that a dealer whose application for compounding has been accepted can, not turn around and urge that he is not liable to pay any tax for any reason, such as closure of business or low turnover etc. Further, in Kothari Contract Interiors (supra) it has been held that a dealer who has opted to pay the tax in lump sum under ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....le receiving the application for composition of tax has accepted that the petitioner would be liable to pay the composition fee at the rate as is provided under the scheme. Sri C.B. Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondents, very fairly accepts the position that under the earlier scheme under section 7-D of the U.P. Trade Tax Act there was no such restriction or there was no such provision for charging of any amount as tax over and above the composition fee if the dealer imports the goods in State of U.P. beyond the specified limit. However, he maintains that now, such a condition has been incorporated in the new scheme floated under section 6 of the U.P. VAT Act and he wants to read the conditions of new scheme in the old scheme. At....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pugned assessment order is in respect to the Assessment Year 2008-2009 and it shall continue to be governed by the scheme, as it then existed, framed under section 7-D of the U.P. Trade Tax Act. The Assessing Authority, thus, could levy and demand the tax from the petitioner as per the terms of the scheme under which the petitioner had opted and not under the new scheme. Strong reliance was placed upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Builders Association of India & another Vs. State of U.P. & others decided on 6th of August, 2012. The said decision is not at all applicable to the facts of the case as the decision therein was rendered under a different factual matrix and the controversy involved therein was altogeth....