2025 (2) TMI 1485

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....eerut in Appeal No. 02/2024 for the assessment year 1994-95 under the U.P. VAT Act. 3. The aforesaid revision was admitted by this Court vide order dated 16.04.2024 on the following question of law:- "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct to uphold the Misc. order passed raising the demand of Rs.27,101/- + interest for A.Y. 1994-95 treating the toughened glass as taxable @15 % on the basis of the subsequent judgement in CTR Nos. 1560, 1510, 1511, 1518, 1519 & 1520 of 2007 dated 07.10.2013 and the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 10704-10709 of 2018 dated 11.07.2023, relating to different assessment years especially when order of the Tribunal in second appeal no. 62....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....preferred Civil Appeal No. 10704-10709 of 2018 before the Apex Court vide judgement dated 11.07.2023 upholding the order dated 07.10.2013 passed by this Court holding toughened glass liable for tax @ 15%. 6. After the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Deputy Commissioner passed a Misc. order dated 01.11.2023 for the assessment year 1994-95 after a lapse of more than 23 years directing that the tax payable on the toughened glass was 15% as against 10% admitted by the revisionist. Aggrieved against the order dated 01.11.2023, the revisionist preferred an appeal before the Additional Commissioner, which has been dismissed vide order dated 22.12.2023. Aggrieved against the order dated 22.12.2023, the revisionist preferred a sec....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 63] and Assotech Realty Private Limited Vs. Additional Commissioner, Grade - 1, Commercial Tax & Others [2019 NTN (71) 97]. 9. Per contra, learned ACSC supports the impugned order and submits that in the previous and the subsequent years for the assessment in question, the view has been taken and confirmed by the Apex Court. The item sold by the revisionist is liable to be taxed @ 15% treating to be classified items in view of the notification dated 07.09.1981 and therefore, the proceedings have rightly been initiated against the revisionist. 10. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Court has perused the records. 11. It is admitted that the original assessment order was passed on 03.11.1997 holding the item to be unc....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ourt held that where the assessment order passed by the assessing authority merges in the appellate order, the assessing authority has no jurisdiction even to issue notice under Section 22 which follows that the power of the assessing authority to re-open the assessment under Section 22 of the Act comes to an end in such a situation. 14. The above view was followed by the Division Bench with approval in the case of Modi Industries Ltd. Modinagar, Ghaziabad and another Vs. State of U.P. and others 1991 UPTC 266. Another Division Bench of this Court in the case of M/s. Ram Das Gupta and Company, Banda Vs. Sales Tax Officer, Sector - I, Banda and another 1992 UPTC 281 following the ratio laid down in M/s M.R. Soap (Pvt.) Ltd., Modi Nagar, G....