2013 (5) TMI 769

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Sanjeev Shankhdhar, Standing Counsel, for the respondents. JUDGMENT By this revision, the revisionist has assailed 1 the impugned order dated June 13, 2001, passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal, Lucknow in Appeal No. 70 of 2000, under section 35 of the Trade Tax Act. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the revisionist is an association of the tent house owners. Whether the tent service....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... has dismissed the appeal by observing that the revisionist has no locus. Not being satisfied, the revisionist has filed a Writ Petition No. 4488 (MB) of 2001, where on February 11, 2002, the honourable court has directed to file a revision against the impugned order. 4. As per the direction, the revisionist has filed the present revision. 5. With this background, Sri N. C. Mishra, learned c....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....otherwise than in a proceeding pending before a court or before an assessing authority under section 7 or section 21, whether, for the purposes of this Act:- (a) any person or association of persons, society, club, firm, company, corporation, undertaking or Government Department is a dealer; or (b)any particular thing done to any goods amounts to or results in the manufacture of goods within....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ch was not challenged by the Department. So, the direction dated March 8, 2000 of the honourable court attains the finality and is binding on the Department. Moving of the application under section 35 of the Act, is an off-suit of the said direction and that is binding upon the lower authorities, even it was wrong. It was the pious duty of the authority concerned to obey the same or assail the sam....