AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (11) TMI 1441
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o of revision that are quoted below: "(i) Whether the Trade Tax Tribunal was justified in taking into consideration the total value of the machines despite the fact that this Hon'ble Court has given finding that 20% of the total investment made cannot be termed as negligible ? (ii) Whether the Trade Tax Tribunal was justified in rejecting the appeal filed by the applicant/revisionist without giving any finding to the effect that the aforesaid two motors were acquired for use anywhere in India ?" 4. Earlier, by a common judgment dated 25.05.2006 passed in Trade Tax Revision No. 334 of 2000 (Vishnu Rice Mill, Mutthiganj, Allahabad Vs. Trade Tax Tribunal, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow and Another) and Trade Tax Revision No. 220 of 2005 (Commissioner Trade Tax, U.P., Lucknow Vs. M/S Vishnu Rice Mill, Mutthiganj, Allahabad) this Court had allowed the those revisions and set aside the earlier order of the Tribunal, dated 18.07.1998. The Tribunal was thus required to record specific finding with respect to the following issues: "(a) Whether the machines have actually been purchased by the assessee or not having regard to the documents which are available on record ? (b) Whether the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ecorded by the Tribunal are liable to be set aside as they suffer from the same inadequacies as had been noted by this Court on the earlier occasion when the matter was remanded. In this regard reliance has been placed on a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of M/S Star Wood, NOIDA, Dist. Ghaziabad and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Others reported in 1995 UPTC 1. 9. Third, it has been submitted the assessee had placed on record the original bills of purchase made by it and the same could not have been ignored. In this regard, reliance has been placed on a division bench decision of this Court in the case of M/S Calcutta Silicate & Chemical Industries, Meerut and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Others reported in 2003 NTN (23) 635 (All.). 10. Alternatively, it has been submitted that even in cases where the assessee being a new unit may not be able to establish the identity of the seller of new machines, it may not be decisive of the issue whether the machinery is new inasmuch as even in respect of purchases made from unregistered dealers, a new unit may remain entitled to claim exemption. In this regard, reliance has been placed on another division bench decision of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed that the Tribunal has considered the claim made by the assessee but also noted the other admitted position of fact being that upon due inquiries made in the year 1993 itself i.e. within few years from the date of alleged purchase of machinery, the firm held M/S R.K. Electricals was found to be nonexistant. Also, the firm from whom the said M/S R.K. Electricals is claimed to have purchased the goods namely electric motors that is M/S Mercury Electricals at Kanpur was also found non-existant. In this regard, the assessee was further unable to produce before the Assessing Officer (in the year 1993 itself) the proprietor of the firm M/S R.K. Electricals. Coupled with the above, it was also found recorded in the inquiry conducted by the Assessing Officer that at one stage the assessee disclosed to have purchased the disputed motors from a mechanic. 15. Whatever be the exact status of the seller from whom the assessee may have acquired the disputed machinery, at present, it appears that the assessee made a specific claim of having purchased those machineries from a dealer M/s R.K. Electricals. The assessee never claimed to have purchased machineries from an unregistered dealer. Such....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ecord a finding contrary to that recorded by this Court. 20. Mere mention of the same in the operative part of the order would not vest any authority with the Tribunal to examine that issue de novo. That issue may have become open if upon remand, the Tribunal may have reached a conclusion that one of the two machines was new. In that event, the cost of the remaining machinery may have been required to be examined to determine whether that was negligible. That is clearly not the case here. 21. Then, as to the objection that no fresh inquiry was conducted by the Tribunal, this Court had restricted the proceedings before the Tribunal to the material already available before it. This restriction was specifically placed before the Tribunal for the purpose of determining the purchase of the machinery claimed by the assessee. To that extent, therefore, the Tribunal has not erred in allowing any fresh material to arise. 22. As to the documents that were available before the Tribunal, obviously, the Tribunal took note of the bill relied upon by the assessee but has not accepted the same in view of the other material and evidence that was available chiefly in the shape of inquiry report o....