2005 (8) TMI 639

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e year 1992, from where it has been received by transfer by this court, under section 35 of the U.P. Reorganisation Act, 2000, for its disposal. The revision, preferred under section 11(1) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948, is directed against order/award dated March 4, 1992, passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal, Bareilly, Camp, Haldwani. The following question of law is involved in this revision:....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ied item. As such, the dealer was not liable to pay any tax on first purchase of said commodity. It has further been held that the assessing officer has wrongly treated purchase of paddy husk as that of rice husk. Learned counsel for the Revenue referred to the principle of law laid down in Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. v. Naveen Traders [1975] 36 STC 440 (All); [1973] UPTC 215 and argued tha....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....court, the case law does not help the revisionist. Admittedly, the dealer had purchased paddy husk for using it as fuel in their boiler. Under Notification No. 3712 dated June 5, 1985, the tax has been levied on the purchase of "rice husk". In Commissioner of Trade Tax v. U.P. Straw and Agro Product Ltd. [2004] UPTC 1125, it has been held that rice husk and paddy husk are two different commodities....