2013 (4) TMI 462

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....is under revision before us. There has been 23 days' delay in preferring the revision. Accordingly, an Application for condonation of delay has been filed. To that, a counter affidavit has been filed. We have considered the averments made in the Application for condonation of delay and also the averments made in the counter affidavit filed thereto and, being satisfied with the reasons for the delay in preferring the revision, we allow the Application. 2. Heard on merits. 3. The facts, to which there appears to be no dispute, are that the revisionist manufactures and sells Desi Ghee and other milk products. Prior to 21st December, 2002, revisionist used to confine its selling activities within the State of Uttar Pradesh, as it remai....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....as may be prescribed. U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 talked about importation of goods in the State of Uttar Pradesh. After creation of the State of Uttarakhand, by reason of the provisions contained in the Uttar Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000, the provisions contained in the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 continued to remain applicable to the State of Uttarakhand. Therefore, by a fiction of law, importation, as contemplated in Section 28A of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948, also included importation to the State of Uttarakhand even from the State of Uttar Pradesh. The statutory mandate that goods, thus imported, must accompany declaration form duly verified by the consignor, being a mandate of the statute, could not be avoided. Rule 83 of the U.P. Trad....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d counsel for the revisionist submitted that, during the relevant year, under Rule 12 of the U.P. Trade Tax Rules, 1948, only two declaration forms were obtained by it and one of them was used during the concerned trip and the other during some other trip. The said contention of the revisionist is not supported by any clinching evidence on the basis whereof one can come to a conclusion that the subject declaration was intended to be used only for the goods in question. 8. The learned counsel for the revisionist cited a judgment of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court rendered in the case of Jain Shudh Vanaspati Ltd., Ghaziabad vs. State of U.P. & others, reported in 1983 UPTC 198 and drew our attention to the observations made by the Court i....