TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (8) TMI 519
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t does not carry job work of fabrication and mounting of bodies on Three Wheeler Chassis of Vikram. It has further been stated that during the Assessment year 1999-2000, the revisionist made tax paid purchasers of Vikram Three Wheeler manufactured by M/s Scooters India Ltd. and also paid tax on the purchase of Vikram bodies from M/s Hindustan Steel Industries, Lucknow. 3. It is stated that both the aforesaid purchases were tax paid purchases in the State of U.P. and form 3-A was used for purchase of Three Wheeler Chassis or the bodies. The assessment for the year 1999-2000 was completed vide order dated 04.01.2002 and the turnovers of Vikram Three Wheelers and the bodies were duly considered by the assessing authority who after examination....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ieu of spare parts which were replaced during the period of warranty and accordingly it was a 'sale' on which the said transaction would be liable to assessment. 6. The revisionist being aggrieved by the aforesaid proceedings initiated under Section 21(2) of the Trade Tax Act had filed an appeal before the first appellate authority which was rejected by means of order dated 26.05.2007 and the second appeal before the Commercial Tax Tribunal was also rejected by means of order dated 20.09.2012. Both the authorities had duly considered the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Ekram Khan(Supra) and held that considering the fact that the petitioner had received a credit note in lieu of spare parts which were replaced dur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ngs were concluded on 04.01.2002 while judgment in the case of Mohd. Ikram Khan was delivered only on 21.07.2004 after lapse of more than two and a half years after completion of the assessment and the judgment in itself would not be a valid ground for reopening the assessment. He submits that all the aspect of the matter were duly considered by the Assessing Authority while finalizing the assessment and the judgment in any case would be applicable prospectively and merely on the basis of judgment invocation of provision of Section 21(2) by the respondents is arbitrary. 9. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand has opposed the writ petition. He has submitted that the question as to whether tax which have been changed during the period ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ven a credit note from the manufacturer for replacing spare parts during the period of warranty came within the ambit of sale and amenable to tax. The question herein as to whether the said assessment could have been reopened in light of the aforesaid judgment. This aspect of the matter has been duly considered by this Court in the case of M/s Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors, 2017 UPTC 63 in paragraph Nos 11, 14 & 15 has held as under:- "11. Further, a subsequent judgment cannot be used to reopen assessments or disturb past assessments which have been concluded. [See Para 7, Austin Engineering V. JCIT (2009) 312 ITR 70 (Guj.) Para 4 and 5, Bear Shoes 2011 (331) ITR 435 (Mad.), B.J. Services Co. Middle East Ltd.....