2019 (9) TMI 105

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lahabad dated 19.11.2005 in Second Appeal No. 291 of 1999 for A.Y. 1994-95. By that order, the Tribunal has dismissed the appeal filed by the assesee and thus confirmed the first appeal order. 3. Present revision has been admitted on the following questions of law:- "(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the levy of tax on lease rent amounting to Rs. 55,91,076/- was justified? (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the levy of tax on sale of Baggase amounting to Rs. 73,89,688/- was justified? (iii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the levy of tax on sale of boilers in running condition and embedded to earth amounting to Rs. 3,50,00,0....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cord, no interference is warranted in the present revision, inasmuch as from a plain reading of the order passed by the first appeal authority, first, it does appear that the conclusion had been drawn against the assessee upon perusal of the record itself. In any case, once the first appeal authority reached a conclusion that the assessee had disclosed sale of "Lugdi" against Form III-B and had recovered tax on such sale, it was for the assessee to have challenged the correctness of the finding and the approach taken by the first appeal authority before the Tribunal. Perusal of the memo of appeal as annexed with the present revision discloses that only one ground was raised with respect to tax imposed on "Baggase". Perusal of that ground....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sy arising under the Act is to be decided keeping in mind the statutory definition of the word 'goods' given under Section 2(d) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). 10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, in the first place, the reasoning given by the Tribunal that the turbo alternators could be detached from the earth at the end of the lease period and, therefore, they are goods, is in the teeth of the ratio in Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs. CTT (supra). In that case also, there was a clause in the agreement whereunder, the lessor could detach from earth the storage tanks etc. Referring to the definition of the word 'goods' under Section ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he assessee on sale of boiler equipment by it to M/S Cipla Ltd. (wrongly described as Kotak Mahindra Ltd. in the Tribunal order). It is an admitted case between the parties that the boiler equipment had been installed and thus fixed to the ground inside the factory premises of the assessee. In that condition and state, it was sold to M/S Cipla Ltd. Title being thus transferred, it was thereafter leased out by M/S Cipla Ltd. to the assessee itself. The Tribunal has proceeded on the reasoning that since the equipment was sold not with the land or earth to which it was attached, therefore, only movable goods had been sold. 14. That test applied by the Tribunal is totally erroneous. On the reasoning adopted by this Court in IOCL Vs CCT (supr....