2020 (1) TMI 750

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ctification of mistake was rejected. This revision relates to assessment year 1989-90. The facts in brief giving rise to this revision are that the revisionist firm registered under the Trade Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 1948") as well as under the Central Sales Tax Act and is engaged in manufacture and sale of rice using raw paddy. The revisionist had established a new unit in the year 1989 and applied under Section 4-A of the Act, 1948 for exemption from payment of trade tax on the sale of rice. The revisionist applied before the Divisional Level Committee for exemption. The application for exemption of the revisionist as rejected by means of order dated 08.11.1994, on the ground that two electric motors have not....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rejected the grounds taken by the revisionist without considering the documents filed by the revisionist and in the aforesaid circumstances, the application under Section 22 of the Act, 1948, was filed. The Tribunal after hearing the parties, by means of order dated 15.07.1999, as rejected the application under Section 22 of the Act, 1948 moved by the revisionist, by stating that there is no mistake of fact in the judgment and therefore the application is not maintainable. The revisionist thereafter, filed revision before this Court which was numbered as Trade Tax Revision No. 334 of 2000 and the revenue also preferred a revision being Trade Tax Revision No. 147 of 1998, before the Lucknow Bench of this Court, which was subsequently tran....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....which is already on the record the Tribunal had ignored and not considered under the judgment and its order dated 16.01.2007? Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that despite direction of this Court, the Tribunal has recorded a wrong finding that there was no evidence regarding any payment made to M/s R.K. Electricals, Mutthiganj, Allahabad and also that the Tribunal has not complied the directions of this Court to decide the question whether the aforesaid motors had been acquired for use in any other factory and, therefore, the Tribunal has not decided the aforesaid questions as well as evidence placed before the Tribunal and the same amounts to error apparent on the face of record, which can be rectified in exercise of po....