2025 (10) TMI 605

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n was admitted by this Court vide order dated 08.01.2013. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that revisionist is a partnership firm and is engaged in the business of taking photographs, including developing, printing and enlargement of photo films and is duly registered under the provisions of U.P. VAT Act. In the normal course of business, the revisionist purchased one Canon Large Format Printer and two Canon Printers stand vide invoice no. 16 dated 27.11.2008. The said goods were coming from Delhi to Varanasi. He further submits that the goods in question were meant to be used in its lab at Varanasi and not for sale. The goods were accompanying with Form-38 as prescribed under the VAT Act and GR's. He further submits that....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d reliance on the judgements of this Court in M/s Maharani Hardware Vs. CCT [Sales/Trade Tax Revision No. 206/2015, decided on 28.03.2022], CCT Vs. S/s Hindisawar Bidi Works [Sales/Trade Tax Revision No. 160/2013, decided on 09.01.2020], CCT Vs. M/s Philips Electronics India Limited [Sales/Trade Tax Revision No. 326/2013, decided on 17.02.2022], CCT Vs. S/s P.B.L. Tag Factor (India) Private Limited [Sales/Trade Tax Revision No. 1232/2012, decided 08.09.2017] and M/s Two Brothers Filaments Limited Vs. CTT [Sales/Trade Tax Revision No. 166/2017, decided on 25.03.2022]. 6. He further submits that the assessment order has been passed on 20.02.2012 and no adverse inference has been drawn against the revisionist, even though penalty was levied. ....