TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (12) TMI 489
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 58 of the U.P.Value Added Tax Act. Against the order of the Commercial Tax Tribunal, Bench-I, Agra dated 14.9.2010 for the assessment year 2005-2006. The questions of law sought to be answered are hereunder:- 1.Whether in view of the Notification No.1307 dated 28.4.2005 since full rebate was allowed by the Assessing Authority in the assessment order dated 6.10.2007 of trade tax on account of entry tax having been paid at the full rate of 5%, hence no State Development Tax can be legally levied in view of clause (iii) of Notification No.1307 dated 28.4.2005? 2.Whether the Assessing Authority in the assessment order dated 6.10.2007 having allowed the trade tax rebate to the full extent on the entire sale of kraft paper and no trade tax was....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the case are that the assessee is a manufacturer and a seller of kraft paper. For the assessment year 2005-06 an order of assessment was passed by the assessing authority by which he accepted the account books of the assessee as well as the disclosed turnover. The kraft paper, which is manufactured by the assessee is notified to be taxable at the rate of 5%, under Section 3A of the U.P.Trade Tax Act. The relevant notification is notification no.730 dated 7.3.2005 issued under Section 3A (1) of U.P. Trade Tax Act. Another notification was issued under Section 4(1) of the U.P.Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 2000 on 10.2.2005 by which it was provided that entry tax shall be payable on the papers meant for packing excluding news print at the rate ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t. (iv) on which exemptions are granted under section 4-C. This claim of the assessee that it is not liable to pay the State Development Tax in view of Section 3H (4) (d) of the Notification dated 28.4.2005 issued under it has been rejected by the Tribunal as well as the lower authorities. I have heard learned Counsels on both sides and also perused the order of the Tribunal. The only ground taken by the Tribunal for rejecting the revisionist's claim is because of four conditions in the notification dated 28.4.2005 have not been satisfied. The Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the words "and" "or" were to be read in between and all the four conditions were satisfied. Having examined the notification I find that the conclusio....