2008 (8) TMI 841

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the Trade Tax Tribunal in Second Appeal No. 355 of 1999 relevant to the assessment year 1996-97 (U.P.). The facts are not much in dispute. The dealer-opposite party carries on the business of manufacture and sale of khandsari sugar, molasses, rab, etc. He applied for and was granted under compounding scheme to pay a lump sum amount as framed by the State Government under section 7D of the U.P.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Heard Sri B.K. Pandey, learned standing counsel for the Department. None is present on behalf of the dealer-opposite party. In the memo of revision, the following questions of law have been sought to be raised: (i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Trade Tax Tribunal is legally justified to set aside the tax imposed on the sale of rab sayar despite the fact ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t may be noted that none of the authorities below has found that "rab sayar" is also included in the said compounding scheme. The Tribunal has proceeded to decide the controversy against the Department on the basis of Explanation I(b) to section 3D(8) of the U. P. Trade Tax Act, 1948. The said Explanation reads as follows: "Explanation I: For the purposes of this Act, the following goods shall ....