2019 (2) TMI 430

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Act, 2008 (in short the 'Act') by which permission has been granted to reopen the completed assessment as well as also challenged the consequential reassessment notice dated 26.12.2017 issued by the respondent nos. 2 and 3 respectively. The petitioner is a U.P. Cooperative Federation Ltd. which is registered under the U.P. Cooperative Society Act, 1965. The petitioner was nominated as purchase agency in relation to wheat and paddy from the farmers on a minimum support price as per scheme annexed by U.P. Food and Supply Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh. As per the instruction and procedure prescribed under the purchase policy the petitioner has prepared a list of places and made available with the District Magistrate in....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cluded in the taxable turn over. Thereafter by means of the impugned order dated 14.11.2017 the respondent no.2 has granted permission under section 29(7) of the Act to reopen the completed assessment on the basis of the fact that rice bran and borken rice (kana) has been given free of cost of the hulling millers on which levy of tax has been escaped to assessment. After receipt of the said order, the respondent no.3 has issued consequential reassessment notice under section 29(7) of the Act. We have heard Mr. Aditya Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. C.B.Tripathi, learned special counsel on behalf of the respondents. Mr. Pandey vehemently argued that at the time of passing of the original assessment order dated ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....8 Bench, Jhansi. The appeal filed by the Revenue has been dismissed by the judgment and order dated 29.8.2018 and the order of the first appellate authority has been confirmed holding that broken rice (kana) given in lieu of hulling charges will not form part of the taxable turn over in the hands of the petitioner. The tribunal has further held that broken rice (kana) which has been given in lieu of hulling charges will not be liable to tax as sales in the hands of the petitioner. Mr. Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent has tried to emphasize on the order dated 14.11.2017 and submitted that there is escapement of tax on the rice bran given by the petitioner free of cost to the rice millers in lieu of hulling charges. He further ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ve opinion Commissioner of Income-tax v. Dinesh Chandra H. Shah [1972] 3 SCC 2311 and Income-tax Officer v. Nawab Mir Barkat Ali Khan Bahadur [1975] 4 SCC 3602 ) (emphasis supplied). On perusal of record it reveals that reassessment proceedings have been initiated on the ground that broken rice (kana) amounting to Rs. 44,17,630/- has been given to the rice millers free of cost in lieu of hulling charges on which tax has escaped to assessment. On perusal of first appellate order as well as the tribunal's order the issue is squarely covered in favour of the petitioner wherein similar controversy was involved with regard of broken rice given to the rice millers free of cost in lieu of hulling charges. However, on the earlier occasion....