U.P. TRADE TAAAX ACT, 1948 — SECTION 8 — …lawpublications.in/tax_digest/Vol. 49 (2010).pdfU.P....

U.PU.PU.PU.PU.P. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE TAAAAAX ACTX ACTX ACTX ACTX ACT, 1948 — SECTION 8 — P, 1948 — SECTION 8 — P, 1948 — SECTION 8 — P, 1948 — SECTION 8 — P, 1948 — SECTION 8 — Payment ofayment ofayment ofayment ofayment of

interest — Assessment of tax liability for Ainterest — Assessment of tax liability for Ainterest — Assessment of tax liability for Ainterest — Assessment of tax liability for Ainterest — Assessment of tax liability for A.Y.Y.Y.Y.Y. 1986-87 con. 1986-87 con. 1986-87 con. 1986-87 con. 1986-87 con-----

firmed by Tribunal and also by High Court in revision — De-firmed by Tribunal and also by High Court in revision — De-firmed by Tribunal and also by High Court in revision — De-firmed by Tribunal and also by High Court in revision — De-firmed by Tribunal and also by High Court in revision — De-

mand notice for interest challenged by writ petition on groundmand notice for interest challenged by writ petition on groundmand notice for interest challenged by writ petition on groundmand notice for interest challenged by writ petition on groundmand notice for interest challenged by writ petition on ground

that tax liability was not admitted and under G.Othat tax liability was not admitted and under G.Othat tax liability was not admitted and under G.Othat tax liability was not admitted and under G.Othat tax liability was not admitted and under G.O. dated 22-03-. dated 22-03-. dated 22-03-. dated 22-03-. dated 22-03-

03 interest was waived by Govrnment — Held plea is not ten-03 interest was waived by Govrnment — Held plea is not ten-03 interest was waived by Govrnment — Held plea is not ten-03 interest was waived by Govrnment — Held plea is not ten-03 interest was waived by Govrnment — Held plea is not ten-

able — G.Oable — G.Oable — G.Oable — G.Oable — G.O. is not applicable as amount was not deposited. is not applicable as amount was not deposited. is not applicable as amount was not deposited. is not applicable as amount was not deposited. is not applicable as amount was not deposited

within terms of scheme — Interest cannot be challenged afterwithin terms of scheme — Interest cannot be challenged afterwithin terms of scheme — Interest cannot be challenged afterwithin terms of scheme — Interest cannot be challenged afterwithin terms of scheme — Interest cannot be challenged after

assessment order was final by High Court — Wassessment order was final by High Court — Wassessment order was final by High Court — Wassessment order was final by High Court — Wassessment order was final by High Court — Writ petition dis-rit petition dis-rit petition dis-rit petition dis-rit petition dis-

missed. missed. missed. missed. missed. [Devi Dayal Aluminium v. State of U.P. & Others, 2010 (49) STJ

1 All. HC]

U.PU.PU.PU.PU.P. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE TAAAAAX ACTX ACTX ACTX ACTX ACT, 1948 — SECTION 7-D — Compound-, 1948 — SECTION 7-D — Compound-, 1948 — SECTION 7-D — Compound-, 1948 — SECTION 7-D — Compound-, 1948 — SECTION 7-D — Compound-

ing Scheme for civil contractors for the year 2004-05 — Amend-ing Scheme for civil contractors for the year 2004-05 — Amend-ing Scheme for civil contractors for the year 2004-05 — Amend-ing Scheme for civil contractors for the year 2004-05 — Amend-ing Scheme for civil contractors for the year 2004-05 — Amend-

ment wment wment wment wment w.e.f. 15-02-05 increasing compounding fee at 2% from.e.f. 15-02-05 increasing compounding fee at 2% from.e.f. 15-02-05 increasing compounding fee at 2% from.e.f. 15-02-05 increasing compounding fee at 2% from.e.f. 15-02-05 increasing compounding fee at 2% from

1% by G.O1% by G.O1% by G.O1% by G.O1% by G.O. dated 11-02-05 — Challenged on ground that en. dated 11-02-05 — Challenged on ground that en. dated 11-02-05 — Challenged on ground that en. dated 11-02-05 — Challenged on ground that en. dated 11-02-05 — Challenged on ground that en-----

hancement during financial year is illegal — Held, plea is nothancement during financial year is illegal — Held, plea is nothancement during financial year is illegal — Held, plea is nothancement during financial year is illegal — Held, plea is nothancement during financial year is illegal — Held, plea is not

tenable — State has power to amend compounding scheme —tenable — State has power to amend compounding scheme —tenable — State has power to amend compounding scheme —tenable — State has power to amend compounding scheme —tenable — State has power to amend compounding scheme —

WWWWWrit petition dismissed. rit petition dismissed. rit petition dismissed. rit petition dismissed. rit petition dismissed. [S.T. Advani & Co. v. State of U.P. Others,

2010 (49) STJ 6 All. HC]

U.PU.PU.PU.PU.P. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE TAAAAAX ACTX ACTX ACTX ACTX ACT, 1948 — SECTION 8-, 1948 — SECTION 8-, 1948 — SECTION 8-, 1948 — SECTION 8-, 1948 — SECTION 8-A(1)(b) — Regis-A(1)(b) — Regis-A(1)(b) — Regis-A(1)(b) — Regis-A(1)(b) — Regis-

tration cancelled due to violation of Section 28-A — Sellingtration cancelled due to violation of Section 28-A — Sellingtration cancelled due to violation of Section 28-A — Sellingtration cancelled due to violation of Section 28-A — Sellingtration cancelled due to violation of Section 28-A — Selling

coke when registration was for hard coke and nature of busi-coke when registration was for hard coke and nature of busi-coke when registration was for hard coke and nature of busi-coke when registration was for hard coke and nature of busi-coke when registration was for hard coke and nature of busi-

ness was changed — Challenged — Held registration cannot beness was changed — Challenged — Held registration cannot beness was changed — Challenged — Held registration cannot beness was changed — Challenged — Held registration cannot beness was changed — Challenged — Held registration cannot be

cancelled on the aforesaid grounds when business was contin-cancelled on the aforesaid grounds when business was contin-cancelled on the aforesaid grounds when business was contin-cancelled on the aforesaid grounds when business was contin-cancelled on the aforesaid grounds when business was contin-

ued and additional business was subject to tax — Revisionued and additional business was subject to tax — Revisionued and additional business was subject to tax — Revisionued and additional business was subject to tax — Revisionued and additional business was subject to tax — Revision

allowed. allowed. allowed. allowed. allowed. [M/s P.R. Fuels Pvt. Ltd. v. C.T.T., U.P., 2010 (49) STJ 8 All. HC]

U.PU.PU.PU.PU.P. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE TAAAAAX ACTX ACTX ACTX ACTX ACT, 1948 — SECTIONS 8(1), 22 — Inter, 1948 — SECTIONS 8(1), 22 — Inter, 1948 — SECTIONS 8(1), 22 — Inter, 1948 — SECTIONS 8(1), 22 — Inter, 1948 — SECTIONS 8(1), 22 — Inter-----

est on besan under notification noest on besan under notification noest on besan under notification noest on besan under notification noest on besan under notification no. 30-09-93 dated 01-04-93 —. 30-09-93 dated 01-04-93 —. 30-09-93 dated 01-04-93 —. 30-09-93 dated 01-04-93 —. 30-09-93 dated 01-04-93 —

Enhancement of tax on besan u/s 22 — Confirmed by TribunalEnhancement of tax on besan u/s 22 — Confirmed by TribunalEnhancement of tax on besan u/s 22 — Confirmed by TribunalEnhancement of tax on besan u/s 22 — Confirmed by TribunalEnhancement of tax on besan u/s 22 — Confirmed by Tribunal

— Challenged — Held that notification was not issued when— Challenged — Held that notification was not issued when— Challenged — Held that notification was not issued when— Challenged — Held that notification was not issued when— Challenged — Held that notification was not issued when

return was filed and tax was paid on return — Interest is notreturn was filed and tax was paid on return — Interest is notreturn was filed and tax was paid on return — Interest is notreturn was filed and tax was paid on return — Interest is notreturn was filed and tax was paid on return — Interest is not

leviable — Revision allowed. leviable — Revision allowed. leviable — Revision allowed. leviable — Revision allowed. leviable — Revision allowed. [Om Dal Mill v. C.T.T., U.P., 2010 (49)

STJ 10 All. HC]

U.PU.PU.PU.PU.P. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE TAAAAAX ACTX ACTX ACTX ACTX ACT, 1948 — SECTION 13-, 1948 — SECTION 13-, 1948 — SECTION 13-, 1948 — SECTION 13-, 1948 — SECTION 13-A(4) — PA(4) — PA(4) — PA(4) — PA(4) — Penaltyenaltyenaltyenaltyenalty

imposed — Confirmed by Tribunal — Challenged — Plea is thatimposed — Confirmed by Tribunal — Challenged — Plea is thatimposed — Confirmed by Tribunal — Challenged — Plea is thatimposed — Confirmed by Tribunal — Challenged — Plea is thatimposed — Confirmed by Tribunal — Challenged — Plea is that

goods were accompanied by Fgoods were accompanied by Fgoods were accompanied by Fgoods were accompanied by Fgoods were accompanied by Form 31 in name of assessee itselform 31 in name of assessee itselform 31 in name of assessee itselform 31 in name of assessee itselform 31 in name of assessee itself

and hence penalty is not leviable — Held plea is just and legaland hence penalty is not leviable — Held plea is just and legaland hence penalty is not leviable — Held plea is just and legaland hence penalty is not leviable — Held plea is just and legaland hence penalty is not leviable — Held plea is just and legal

— Revision allowed. — Revision allowed. — Revision allowed. — Revision allowed. — Revision allowed. [M/s Sarkar Bidi Co., Jhansi v. C.T.T., U.P., 2010

(49) STJ 12 All. HC]

U.PU.PU.PU.PU.P. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE TAAAAAX ACTX ACTX ACTX ACTX ACT, 1948 — SECTION 3 — Rori which, 1948 — SECTION 3 — Rori which, 1948 — SECTION 3 — Rori which, 1948 — SECTION 3 — Rori which, 1948 — SECTION 3 — Rori which

purchased from Delhi is liable to tax in hands of assessee inpurchased from Delhi is liable to tax in hands of assessee inpurchased from Delhi is liable to tax in hands of assessee inpurchased from Delhi is liable to tax in hands of assessee inpurchased from Delhi is liable to tax in hands of assessee in

U.PU.PU.PU.PU.P. — Levy of tax challenged and confirmed by T. — Levy of tax challenged and confirmed by T. — Levy of tax challenged and confirmed by T. — Levy of tax challenged and confirmed by T. — Levy of tax challenged and confirmed by Tribunal —ribunal —ribunal —ribunal —ribunal —

Challenged — Held rori purchased from Delhi taxable at 4%Challenged — Held rori purchased from Delhi taxable at 4%Challenged — Held rori purchased from Delhi taxable at 4%Challenged — Held rori purchased from Delhi taxable at 4%Challenged — Held rori purchased from Delhi taxable at 4%

and not 7% — Tribunal’s order modified and revision disposedand not 7% — Tribunal’s order modified and revision disposedand not 7% — Tribunal’s order modified and revision disposedand not 7% — Tribunal’s order modified and revision disposedand not 7% — Tribunal’s order modified and revision disposed

off. off. off. off. off. [M/s Ashok Kumar Chhabra Contractor v. C.C.T., U.P., 2010 (49)

STJ 13 All. HC]

U.PU.PU.PU.PU.P. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE TAAAAAX ACTX ACTX ACTX ACTX ACT, 1948 — SECTIONS 29, 8 — Assess-, 1948 — SECTIONS 29, 8 — Assess-, 1948 — SECTIONS 29, 8 — Assess-, 1948 — SECTIONS 29, 8 — Assess-, 1948 — SECTIONS 29, 8 — Assess-

ment was quashed by appellate authority — Interest on amountment was quashed by appellate authority — Interest on amountment was quashed by appellate authority — Interest on amountment was quashed by appellate authority — Interest on amountment was quashed by appellate authority — Interest on amount

deposited by assessee was rejected — Challenged — Plea isdeposited by assessee was rejected — Challenged — Plea isdeposited by assessee was rejected — Challenged — Plea isdeposited by assessee was rejected — Challenged — Plea isdeposited by assessee was rejected — Challenged — Plea is

that as per demand of securitythat as per demand of securitythat as per demand of securitythat as per demand of securitythat as per demand of security, deposit was made in 1976 and, deposit was made in 1976 and, deposit was made in 1976 and, deposit was made in 1976 and, deposit was made in 1976 and

it was refunded in 1997 hence interest is due from 1976 toit was refunded in 1997 hence interest is due from 1976 toit was refunded in 1997 hence interest is due from 1976 toit was refunded in 1997 hence interest is due from 1976 toit was refunded in 1997 hence interest is due from 1976 to

1997 — Held plea is just and legal — Interest is payable from1997 — Held plea is just and legal — Interest is payable from1997 — Held plea is just and legal — Interest is payable from1997 — Held plea is just and legal — Interest is payable from1997 — Held plea is just and legal — Interest is payable from

1976 to 1997 — Revision allowed. 1976 to 1997 — Revision allowed. 1976 to 1997 — Revision allowed. 1976 to 1997 — Revision allowed. 1976 to 1997 — Revision allowed. [M/s Rajat Udyog v. C.T.T., U.P.,

2010 (49) STJ 15 All. HC]

U.PU.PU.PU.PU.P. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE TAAAAAX ACTX ACTX ACTX ACTX ACT, 1948 — SECTION 11 — Revision in, 1948 — SECTION 11 — Revision in, 1948 — SECTION 11 — Revision in, 1948 — SECTION 11 — Revision in, 1948 — SECTION 11 — Revision in

High Court — Scope — Bricks kiln business — Account booksHigh Court — Scope — Bricks kiln business — Account booksHigh Court — Scope — Bricks kiln business — Account booksHigh Court — Scope — Bricks kiln business — Account booksHigh Court — Scope — Bricks kiln business — Account books

rejected and estimated turnover made — Confirmed by Tribu-rejected and estimated turnover made — Confirmed by Tribu-rejected and estimated turnover made — Confirmed by Tribu-rejected and estimated turnover made — Confirmed by Tribu-rejected and estimated turnover made — Confirmed by Tribu-

nal reducing tax liability — Challenged — Held estimation ofnal reducing tax liability — Challenged — Held estimation ofnal reducing tax liability — Challenged — Held estimation ofnal reducing tax liability — Challenged — Held estimation ofnal reducing tax liability — Challenged — Held estimation of

turnover is a question of fact and not question of law — Revi-turnover is a question of fact and not question of law — Revi-turnover is a question of fact and not question of law — Revi-turnover is a question of fact and not question of law — Revi-turnover is a question of fact and not question of law — Revi-

sion dismissed. sion dismissed. sion dismissed. sion dismissed. sion dismissed. [M/s Deva Brick Field, Barabanki v. C.T.T., U.P., 2010

(49) STJ 17 All. HC]

U.PU.PU.PU.PU.P. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE TAAAAAX ACTX ACTX ACTX ACTX ACT, 1948 — SECTION 13-, 1948 — SECTION 13-, 1948 — SECTION 13-, 1948 — SECTION 13-, 1948 — SECTION 13-A(3) — GoodsA(3) — GoodsA(3) — GoodsA(3) — GoodsA(3) — Goods

seized on ground that the same were carried twice on sameseized on ground that the same were carried twice on sameseized on ground that the same were carried twice on sameseized on ground that the same were carried twice on sameseized on ground that the same were carried twice on same

documents relating to unregistered dealers — Cash securitydocuments relating to unregistered dealers — Cash securitydocuments relating to unregistered dealers — Cash securitydocuments relating to unregistered dealers — Cash securitydocuments relating to unregistered dealers — Cash security

demanded — Confirmed by Tribunal — Challenged — Helddemanded — Confirmed by Tribunal — Challenged — Helddemanded — Confirmed by Tribunal — Challenged — Helddemanded — Confirmed by Tribunal — Challenged — Helddemanded — Confirmed by Tribunal — Challenged — Held

seized goods were accompanied by documents — Departmentseized goods were accompanied by documents — Departmentseized goods were accompanied by documents — Departmentseized goods were accompanied by documents — Departmentseized goods were accompanied by documents — Department

did not enquire into about unregistered — Revision allowed.did not enquire into about unregistered — Revision allowed.did not enquire into about unregistered — Revision allowed.did not enquire into about unregistered — Revision allowed.did not enquire into about unregistered — Revision allowed.

[M/s S.K.S. Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. v. C.C.T. U.P., 2010 (49) STJ 20 All. HC]

U.PU.PU.PU.PU.P. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE TAAAAAX ACTX ACTX ACTX ACTX ACT, 1948 — SECTION 11 —, 1948 — SECTION 11 —, 1948 — SECTION 11 —, 1948 — SECTION 11 —, 1948 — SECTION 11 — Question of Question of Question of Question of Question of

law — Scope and interpretation — Brick kiln business — As-law — Scope and interpretation — Brick kiln business — As-law — Scope and interpretation — Brick kiln business — As-law — Scope and interpretation — Brick kiln business — As-law — Scope and interpretation — Brick kiln business — As-

sessment made — Confirmed by Tribunal with reduction in taxsessment made — Confirmed by Tribunal with reduction in taxsessment made — Confirmed by Tribunal with reduction in taxsessment made — Confirmed by Tribunal with reduction in taxsessment made — Confirmed by Tribunal with reduction in tax

— Challenged — Plea is that there was bonafide mistake in— Challenged — Plea is that there was bonafide mistake in— Challenged — Plea is that there was bonafide mistake in— Challenged — Plea is that there was bonafide mistake in— Challenged — Plea is that there was bonafide mistake in

showing amount of stock — Held plea is not tenable —This isshowing amount of stock — Held plea is not tenable —This isshowing amount of stock — Held plea is not tenable —This isshowing amount of stock — Held plea is not tenable —This isshowing amount of stock — Held plea is not tenable —This is

not question of law — Jurisdiction is limited to question of lawnot question of law — Jurisdiction is limited to question of lawnot question of law — Jurisdiction is limited to question of lawnot question of law — Jurisdiction is limited to question of lawnot question of law — Jurisdiction is limited to question of law

— Revision dismissed. — Revision dismissed. — Revision dismissed. — Revision dismissed. — Revision dismissed. [M/s Uttam Brick Field, Sitapur v. C.T.T., U.P.,

2010 (49) STJ 21 All. HC]

U.PU.PU.PU.PU.P. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE TAAAAAX ACTX ACTX ACTX ACTX ACT, 1948 — SECTION 13-, 1948 — SECTION 13-, 1948 — SECTION 13-, 1948 — SECTION 13-, 1948 — SECTION 13-A(4) — PA(4) — PA(4) — PA(4) — PA(4) — Penaltyenaltyenaltyenaltyenalty

imposed as seized goods, which were belonging to other State’simposed as seized goods, which were belonging to other State’simposed as seized goods, which were belonging to other State’simposed as seized goods, which were belonging to other State’simposed as seized goods, which were belonging to other State’s

jewelers, were not accompanied with bills — Confirmed by Tri-jewelers, were not accompanied with bills — Confirmed by Tri-jewelers, were not accompanied with bills — Confirmed by Tri-jewelers, were not accompanied with bills — Confirmed by Tri-jewelers, were not accompanied with bills — Confirmed by Tri-

bunal with some reduction — Challenged — Plea is that photobunal with some reduction — Challenged — Plea is that photobunal with some reduction — Challenged — Plea is that photobunal with some reduction — Challenged — Plea is that photobunal with some reduction — Challenged — Plea is that photo-----

copy of bill was filed at time of seizure — Held matter needscopy of bill was filed at time of seizure — Held matter needscopy of bill was filed at time of seizure — Held matter needscopy of bill was filed at time of seizure — Held matter needscopy of bill was filed at time of seizure — Held matter needs

re-examination — Revision allowed and matter remanded. re-examination — Revision allowed and matter remanded. re-examination — Revision allowed and matter remanded. re-examination — Revision allowed and matter remanded. re-examination — Revision allowed and matter remanded. [M/s

Mohan Jewelers, Pooranpur v. C.C.T., U.P., 2010 (49) STJ 23 All. HC]

U.PU.PU.PU.PU.P. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE TAAAAAX ACTX ACTX ACTX ACTX ACT, 1948 — SECTION 3-, 1948 — SECTION 3-, 1948 — SECTION 3-, 1948 — SECTION 3-, 1948 — SECTION 3-A — Hosiery goodsA — Hosiery goodsA — Hosiery goodsA — Hosiery goodsA — Hosiery goods

— Rate of tax — Levied at rate of 5% — Assessee claimed tax— Rate of tax — Levied at rate of 5% — Assessee claimed tax— Rate of tax — Levied at rate of 5% — Assessee claimed tax— Rate of tax — Levied at rate of 5% — Assessee claimed tax— Rate of tax — Levied at rate of 5% — Assessee claimed tax

rate of 2% under notification dated 25-05-94 — Claim of asses-rate of 2% under notification dated 25-05-94 — Claim of asses-rate of 2% under notification dated 25-05-94 — Claim of asses-rate of 2% under notification dated 25-05-94 — Claim of asses-rate of 2% under notification dated 25-05-94 — Claim of asses-

see rejected — Confirmed by Tribunal — Challenged — Heldsee rejected — Confirmed by Tribunal — Challenged — Heldsee rejected — Confirmed by Tribunal — Challenged — Heldsee rejected — Confirmed by Tribunal — Challenged — Heldsee rejected — Confirmed by Tribunal — Challenged — Held

the issue of rate of tax under notification not raised beforethe issue of rate of tax under notification not raised beforethe issue of rate of tax under notification not raised beforethe issue of rate of tax under notification not raised beforethe issue of rate of tax under notification not raised before

lower authorities, hence claim of assessee is not just — Revi-lower authorities, hence claim of assessee is not just — Revi-lower authorities, hence claim of assessee is not just — Revi-lower authorities, hence claim of assessee is not just — Revi-lower authorities, hence claim of assessee is not just — Revi-

sion dismissed. sion dismissed. sion dismissed. sion dismissed. sion dismissed. [M/s Dayal Hosiery India v. C.T.T., U.P., 2010 (49) STJ

25 All. HC]

U.PU.PU.PU.PU.P. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE TAAAAAX ACTX ACTX ACTX ACTX ACT, 1948 — SECTION 10-B — Assessment, 1948 — SECTION 10-B — Assessment, 1948 — SECTION 10-B — Assessment, 1948 — SECTION 10-B — Assessment, 1948 — SECTION 10-B — Assessment

made — Initiation of enquiry of assessment order —Challengedmade — Initiation of enquiry of assessment order —Challengedmade — Initiation of enquiry of assessment order —Challengedmade — Initiation of enquiry of assessment order —Challengedmade — Initiation of enquiry of assessment order —Challenged

— Held order of commissioner does not show any reason or— Held order of commissioner does not show any reason or— Held order of commissioner does not show any reason or— Held order of commissioner does not show any reason or— Held order of commissioner does not show any reason or

basis to examine assessment order when all books of accountbasis to examine assessment order when all books of accountbasis to examine assessment order when all books of accountbasis to examine assessment order when all books of accountbasis to examine assessment order when all books of account

were produced and considered by assessing authority — Revi-were produced and considered by assessing authority — Revi-were produced and considered by assessing authority — Revi-were produced and considered by assessing authority — Revi-were produced and considered by assessing authority — Revi-

sion allowed. sion allowed. sion allowed. sion allowed. sion allowed. [M/s Jai Bhawani Udyog, Alld. v. C.T.T., U.P., 2010 (49)

STJ 27 All. HC]

U.PU.PU.PU.PU.P. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE TAAAAAX ACTX ACTX ACTX ACTX ACT, 1948 — SECTIONS 12(2), 10 — Ac-, 1948 — SECTIONS 12(2), 10 — Ac-, 1948 — SECTIONS 12(2), 10 — Ac-, 1948 — SECTIONS 12(2), 10 — Ac-, 1948 — SECTIONS 12(2), 10 — Ac-

count books rejected and estimate of turnover enhanced —count books rejected and estimate of turnover enhanced —count books rejected and estimate of turnover enhanced —count books rejected and estimate of turnover enhanced —count books rejected and estimate of turnover enhanced —

Confirmed by Tribunal — Challenged — No reason or basisConfirmed by Tribunal — Challenged — No reason or basisConfirmed by Tribunal — Challenged — No reason or basisConfirmed by Tribunal — Challenged — No reason or basisConfirmed by Tribunal — Challenged — No reason or basis

given by Tribunal while reducing turnover — Matter remandedgiven by Tribunal while reducing turnover — Matter remandedgiven by Tribunal while reducing turnover — Matter remandedgiven by Tribunal while reducing turnover — Matter remandedgiven by Tribunal while reducing turnover — Matter remanded

to Tibunal to hear assessee — Revision allowed. to Tibunal to hear assessee — Revision allowed. to Tibunal to hear assessee — Revision allowed. to Tibunal to hear assessee — Revision allowed. to Tibunal to hear assessee — Revision allowed. [M/s Yadav &

Company v. C.T.T. U.P., 2010 (49) STJ 28 All. HC]

U.PU.PU.PU.PU.P. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE TAAAAAX ACTX ACTX ACTX ACTX ACT, 1948 — SECTION 2(i) — T, 1948 — SECTION 2(i) — T, 1948 — SECTION 2(i) — T, 1948 — SECTION 2(i) — T, 1948 — SECTION 2(i) — Turnurnurnurnurn-----

over — Tover — Tover — Tover — Tover — Tax levied on freight and insurance charges as part ofax levied on freight and insurance charges as part ofax levied on freight and insurance charges as part ofax levied on freight and insurance charges as part ofax levied on freight and insurance charges as part of

turnover — Confirmed by Tribunal — Challenged — Held thatturnover — Confirmed by Tribunal — Challenged — Held thatturnover — Confirmed by Tribunal — Challenged — Held thatturnover — Confirmed by Tribunal — Challenged — Held thatturnover — Confirmed by Tribunal — Challenged — Held that

freight and insurance were not separately charged but includedfreight and insurance were not separately charged but includedfreight and insurance were not separately charged but includedfreight and insurance were not separately charged but includedfreight and insurance were not separately charged but included

in contract — Revision dismissed. in contract — Revision dismissed. in contract — Revision dismissed. in contract — Revision dismissed. in contract — Revision dismissed. [M/s Indian Alluminium Cables

Ltd. v. C.T.T., U.P., 2010 (49) STJ 26 All. HC]

U.PU.PU.PU.PU.P. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE TAAAAAX ACTX ACTX ACTX ACTX ACT, 1948 — SECTION 15-, 1948 — SECTION 15-, 1948 — SECTION 15-, 1948 — SECTION 15-, 1948 — SECTION 15-A(1)(o) — PA(1)(o) — PA(1)(o) — PA(1)(o) — PA(1)(o) — Penenenenen-----

alty for importing goods not mentioned in Falty for importing goods not mentioned in Falty for importing goods not mentioned in Falty for importing goods not mentioned in Falty for importing goods not mentioned in Form-31 — Confirmedorm-31 — Confirmedorm-31 — Confirmedorm-31 — Confirmedorm-31 — Confirmed

by Tribunal — Challenged — Held finding of Tribunal is correctby Tribunal — Challenged — Held finding of Tribunal is correctby Tribunal — Challenged — Held finding of Tribunal is correctby Tribunal — Challenged — Held finding of Tribunal is correctby Tribunal — Challenged — Held finding of Tribunal is correct

— No error of law — Revision dismissed. — No error of law — Revision dismissed. — No error of law — Revision dismissed. — No error of law — Revision dismissed. — No error of law — Revision dismissed. [Om Prakash Gupta v.

C.T.T. U.P., 2010 (49) STJ 20 All. HC]

U.PU.PU.PU.PU.P. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE TAAAAAX ACTX ACTX ACTX ACTX ACT, 1948 — SECTION 15-, 1948 — SECTION 15-, 1948 — SECTION 15-, 1948 — SECTION 15-, 1948 — SECTION 15-A(1)(o) — PA(1)(o) — PA(1)(o) — PA(1)(o) — PA(1)(o) — Penenenenen-----

alty imposed for importing goods in excess as mentioned inalty imposed for importing goods in excess as mentioned inalty imposed for importing goods in excess as mentioned inalty imposed for importing goods in excess as mentioned inalty imposed for importing goods in excess as mentioned in

FFFFForm-31 — Explanation of assessee was rejected by Torm-31 — Explanation of assessee was rejected by Torm-31 — Explanation of assessee was rejected by Torm-31 — Explanation of assessee was rejected by Torm-31 — Explanation of assessee was rejected by Tribunalribunalribunalribunalribunal

— Challenged — Held, concurrent findings of fact cannot be— Challenged — Held, concurrent findings of fact cannot be— Challenged — Held, concurrent findings of fact cannot be— Challenged — Held, concurrent findings of fact cannot be— Challenged — Held, concurrent findings of fact cannot be

interfered with in revision — Revision dismissed. interfered with in revision — Revision dismissed. interfered with in revision — Revision dismissed. interfered with in revision — Revision dismissed. interfered with in revision — Revision dismissed. [M/s Jai Balaji

Steels, Gorakhpur v. C.T.T., U.P., 2010 (49) STJ 31 All. HC]

U.PU.PU.PU.PU.P. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE TAAAAAX ACTX ACTX ACTX ACTX ACT, 1948 — SECTION 21(2) — Re-assess-, 1948 — SECTION 21(2) — Re-assess-, 1948 — SECTION 21(2) — Re-assess-, 1948 — SECTION 21(2) — Re-assess-, 1948 — SECTION 21(2) — Re-assess-

ment made after expiry of period — Approve of Commissionerment made after expiry of period — Approve of Commissionerment made after expiry of period — Approve of Commissionerment made after expiry of period — Approve of Commissionerment made after expiry of period — Approve of Commissioner

granted but without giving opportunity of hearing to assesseegranted but without giving opportunity of hearing to assesseegranted but without giving opportunity of hearing to assesseegranted but without giving opportunity of hearing to assesseegranted but without giving opportunity of hearing to assessee

— Reassessment confirmed by Tribunal — Challenged — Held— Reassessment confirmed by Tribunal — Challenged — Held— Reassessment confirmed by Tribunal — Challenged — Held— Reassessment confirmed by Tribunal — Challenged — Held— Reassessment confirmed by Tribunal — Challenged — Held

opportunity of hearing in necessary — Revision allowed. opportunity of hearing in necessary — Revision allowed. opportunity of hearing in necessary — Revision allowed. opportunity of hearing in necessary — Revision allowed. opportunity of hearing in necessary — Revision allowed. [M/s

Patel Products v. Trade Tax Tribunal & Ors., 2010 (49) STJ 32 All. HC]

U.PU.PU.PU.PU.P. V. V. V. V. VAAAAAT ACT — SECTION 58 — PT ACT — SECTION 58 — PT ACT — SECTION 58 — PT ACT — SECTION 58 — PT ACT — SECTION 58 — Petition on the ground thatetition on the ground thatetition on the ground thatetition on the ground thatetition on the ground that

Tribunal allowed appeal exparte without giving opportunity ofTribunal allowed appeal exparte without giving opportunity ofTribunal allowed appeal exparte without giving opportunity ofTribunal allowed appeal exparte without giving opportunity ofTribunal allowed appeal exparte without giving opportunity of

hearing — Held : it is open to the petitioner to move recallinghearing — Held : it is open to the petitioner to move recallinghearing — Held : it is open to the petitioner to move recallinghearing — Held : it is open to the petitioner to move recallinghearing — Held : it is open to the petitioner to move recalling

application before the Tapplication before the Tapplication before the Tapplication before the Tapplication before the Tribunal or may file revision — Wribunal or may file revision — Wribunal or may file revision — Wribunal or may file revision — Wribunal or may file revision — Writritritritrit

petition dismissed.petition dismissed.petition dismissed.petition dismissed.petition dismissed.

;kfpdk bl vk/kkj ij nk;j fd vf/kdj.k us lquus dk volj iznku fd;s fcuk vihyLohdkjh — fu.kZ;% iSVh’ku dks vf/kdj.k dks fjdkWfyax dk vkosnu nsuk pkfg, vFkokfjohtu dk vkosnu djuk pkfg;s — fjV iSVh’ku fujLrA [M/s Nandan Metal Trad-

ers v. Comm. (Appellate Tribunal) & Ors.,2010 (49) STJ 54 All. HC]

U.PU.PU.PU.PU.P. V. V. V. V. VAAAAAT ACTT ACTT ACTT ACTT ACT, 2008 — SECTIONS 25(1), 25(2) — Whether, 2008 — SECTIONS 25(1), 25(2) — Whether, 2008 — SECTIONS 25(1), 25(2) — Whether, 2008 — SECTIONS 25(1), 25(2) — Whether, 2008 — SECTIONS 25(1), 25(2) — Whether

provisional assessment order cannot be passed after furnish-provisional assessment order cannot be passed after furnish-provisional assessment order cannot be passed after furnish-provisional assessment order cannot be passed after furnish-provisional assessment order cannot be passed after furnish-

ing of annual return — Held : Ying of annual return — Held : Ying of annual return — Held : Ying of annual return — Held : Ying of annual return — Held : Yes, provisional assessment ores, provisional assessment ores, provisional assessment ores, provisional assessment ores, provisional assessment or-----

der cannot be passed so — Wder cannot be passed so — Wder cannot be passed so — Wder cannot be passed so — Wder cannot be passed so — Writ Prit Prit Prit Prit Petition allowed.etition allowed.etition allowed.etition allowed.etition allowed.

D;k okf’kZd fooj.kh izLrqr djus ds ckn izksfotuy fu/kkZj.k vkns’k tkjh ugha fd;s tk

ldrs gSa — fu.kZ;% gkW ,sls vkns’k tkjh ugah fd;s tk ldrs gSa — iSVh’ku LohdkjA [M/s

Dinesh Chandra Gupta & Sons v. State of U.P. & Anr.2010 (49) STJ 55

All. HC]

U.PU.PU.PU.PU.P. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE TAAAAAX ACTX ACTX ACTX ACTX ACT, 1948 — SECTION 4-, 1948 — SECTION 4-, 1948 — SECTION 4-, 1948 — SECTION 4-, 1948 — SECTION 4-AAAAA, RULE 25(3)(c), RULE 25(3)(c), RULE 25(3)(c), RULE 25(3)(c), RULE 25(3)(c)

— Application for eligibility certificate rejected on 30-10-1999— Application for eligibility certificate rejected on 30-10-1999— Application for eligibility certificate rejected on 30-10-1999— Application for eligibility certificate rejected on 30-10-1999— Application for eligibility certificate rejected on 30-10-1999

— Review application filed on 18-02-2000 — Rejected as barred— Review application filed on 18-02-2000 — Rejected as barred— Review application filed on 18-02-2000 — Rejected as barred— Review application filed on 18-02-2000 — Rejected as barred— Review application filed on 18-02-2000 — Rejected as barred

by time — Confirmed by the Tribunal — Challenged — Heldby time — Confirmed by the Tribunal — Challenged — Heldby time — Confirmed by the Tribunal — Challenged — Heldby time — Confirmed by the Tribunal — Challenged — Heldby time — Confirmed by the Tribunal — Challenged — Held

when a special law does not provide for the application ofwhen a special law does not provide for the application ofwhen a special law does not provide for the application ofwhen a special law does not provide for the application ofwhen a special law does not provide for the application of

Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963, then delay condoSection 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963, then delay condoSection 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963, then delay condoSection 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963, then delay condoSection 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963, then delay condo-----

nation is expressly excluded — Revision dismissed. nation is expressly excluded — Revision dismissed. nation is expressly excluded — Revision dismissed. nation is expressly excluded — Revision dismissed. nation is expressly excluded — Revision dismissed. [M/s Noor

Cottage Pvt. Ltd. v. C.T.T., U.P., 2010 (49) STJ 60 All. HC]

U.PU.PU.PU.PU.P. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE TAAAAAX ACTX ACTX ACTX ACTX ACT, 1948 — SECTION 21(2) — Approval, 1948 — SECTION 21(2) — Approval, 1948 — SECTION 21(2) — Approval, 1948 — SECTION 21(2) — Approval, 1948 — SECTION 21(2) — Approval

to initiate reassessment proceeding — Challenged on groundto initiate reassessment proceeding — Challenged on groundto initiate reassessment proceeding — Challenged on groundto initiate reassessment proceeding — Challenged on groundto initiate reassessment proceeding — Challenged on ground

that no reason was given by Additional Commissioner — Heldthat no reason was given by Additional Commissioner — Heldthat no reason was given by Additional Commissioner — Heldthat no reason was given by Additional Commissioner — Heldthat no reason was given by Additional Commissioner — Held

plea is just and proper — Reason is necessary to be assignedplea is just and proper — Reason is necessary to be assignedplea is just and proper — Reason is necessary to be assignedplea is just and proper — Reason is necessary to be assignedplea is just and proper — Reason is necessary to be assigned

— Matter remanded for reconsideration without bar of limita-— Matter remanded for reconsideration without bar of limita-— Matter remanded for reconsideration without bar of limita-— Matter remanded for reconsideration without bar of limita-— Matter remanded for reconsideration without bar of limita-

tion — Wtion — Wtion — Wtion — Wtion — Writ petition allowed. rit petition allowed. rit petition allowed. rit petition allowed. rit petition allowed. [M/s Hind Agro Industries Ltd., Gzb. v.

State of U.P. & Ors.2010 (49) STJ 61 All. HC]

U.PU.PU.PU.PU.P. V. V. V. V. VALALALALALUE ADDED TUE ADDED TUE ADDED TUE ADDED TUE ADDED TAAAAAX ACTX ACTX ACTX ACTX ACT, 2008 — SECTIONS 25(1),, 2008 — SECTIONS 25(1),, 2008 — SECTIONS 25(1),, 2008 — SECTIONS 25(1),, 2008 — SECTIONS 25(1),

32(2) — Provisional assessment order passed ex-parte — Re-32(2) — Provisional assessment order passed ex-parte — Re-32(2) — Provisional assessment order passed ex-parte — Re-32(2) — Provisional assessment order passed ex-parte — Re-32(2) — Provisional assessment order passed ex-parte — Re-

covery proceeding started — Challenged on ground that finalcovery proceeding started — Challenged on ground that finalcovery proceeding started — Challenged on ground that finalcovery proceeding started — Challenged on ground that finalcovery proceeding started — Challenged on ground that final

assessment proceeding for Aassessment proceeding for Aassessment proceeding for Aassessment proceeding for Aassessment proceeding for A.Y.Y.Y.Y.Y. 2008-09 pending — Held, re-. 2008-09 pending — Held, re-. 2008-09 pending — Held, re-. 2008-09 pending — Held, re-. 2008-09 pending — Held, re-

covery is not just and stayed subject to deposit of 20% — Di-covery is not just and stayed subject to deposit of 20% — Di-covery is not just and stayed subject to deposit of 20% — Di-covery is not just and stayed subject to deposit of 20% — Di-covery is not just and stayed subject to deposit of 20% — Di-

rection to complete final assessment within 3 months — Wrection to complete final assessment within 3 months — Wrection to complete final assessment within 3 months — Wrection to complete final assessment within 3 months — Wrection to complete final assessment within 3 months — Writritritritrit

disposed of. disposed of. disposed of. disposed of. disposed of. [M/s Singhal Iron Store v. State of U.P. & Anr., 2010 (49)

STJ 63 All. HC]

U.PU.PU.PU.PU.P. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE TAAAAAX ACTX ACTX ACTX ACTX ACT, 1948 — SECTION 7(3) — Account, 1948 — SECTION 7(3) — Account, 1948 — SECTION 7(3) — Account, 1948 — SECTION 7(3) — Account, 1948 — SECTION 7(3) — Account

books rejected and turnover assessed — Claim of assessee thatbooks rejected and turnover assessed — Claim of assessee thatbooks rejected and turnover assessed — Claim of assessee thatbooks rejected and turnover assessed — Claim of assessee thatbooks rejected and turnover assessed — Claim of assessee that

goods were returned back to seller rejected — Confirmed bygoods were returned back to seller rejected — Confirmed bygoods were returned back to seller rejected — Confirmed bygoods were returned back to seller rejected — Confirmed bygoods were returned back to seller rejected — Confirmed by

Tribunal — Challenged — Plea of that assessee had filed ex-Tribunal — Challenged — Plea of that assessee had filed ex-Tribunal — Challenged — Plea of that assessee had filed ex-Tribunal — Challenged — Plea of that assessee had filed ex-Tribunal — Challenged — Plea of that assessee had filed ex-

cise documents to prove return of goods not considered — Heldcise documents to prove return of goods not considered — Heldcise documents to prove return of goods not considered — Heldcise documents to prove return of goods not considered — Heldcise documents to prove return of goods not considered — Held

plea is a just and proper — Revision allowed and matter re-plea is a just and proper — Revision allowed and matter re-plea is a just and proper — Revision allowed and matter re-plea is a just and proper — Revision allowed and matter re-plea is a just and proper — Revision allowed and matter re-

manded for reconsideration. manded for reconsideration. manded for reconsideration. manded for reconsideration. manded for reconsideration. [M/s Delicious Food Products P. Ltd. v.

C.T.T., U.P., 2010 (49) STJ 65 All. HC]


books rejected and estimate of turnover made — Commodity inbooks rejected and estimate of turnover made — Commodity inbooks rejected and estimate of turnover made — Commodity inbooks rejected and estimate of turnover made — Commodity inbooks rejected and estimate of turnover made — Commodity in

question is methi, found in survey and tax assessed — Con-question is methi, found in survey and tax assessed — Con-question is methi, found in survey and tax assessed — Con-question is methi, found in survey and tax assessed — Con-question is methi, found in survey and tax assessed — Con-

firmed by Tribunal — Challenged plea is that assessee is notfirmed by Tribunal — Challenged plea is that assessee is notfirmed by Tribunal — Challenged plea is that assessee is notfirmed by Tribunal — Challenged plea is that assessee is notfirmed by Tribunal — Challenged plea is that assessee is not

dealer but merely farmer and in other previous years, he wasdealer but merely farmer and in other previous years, he wasdealer but merely farmer and in other previous years, he wasdealer but merely farmer and in other previous years, he wasdealer but merely farmer and in other previous years, he was

declared non-taxable — Held plea is just and proper — Revideclared non-taxable — Held plea is just and proper — Revideclared non-taxable — Held plea is just and proper — Revideclared non-taxable — Held plea is just and proper — Revideclared non-taxable — Held plea is just and proper — Revi

sion allowed and tax deleted. sion allowed and tax deleted. sion allowed and tax deleted. sion allowed and tax deleted. sion allowed and tax deleted. [Bhairo Sahu v. C.T.T. U.P., 2010 (49)

STJ 66 All. HC]

U.PU.PU.PU.PU.P. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE TAAAAAX ACTX ACTX ACTX ACTX ACT, 1948 — SECTION 29-, 1948 — SECTION 29-, 1948 — SECTION 29-, 1948 — SECTION 29-, 1948 — SECTION 29-A — Refund —A — Refund —A — Refund —A — Refund —A — Refund —

Axle parts — Assessee paid @ 10% whereas it is taxable @ 4%Axle parts — Assessee paid @ 10% whereas it is taxable @ 4%Axle parts — Assessee paid @ 10% whereas it is taxable @ 4%Axle parts — Assessee paid @ 10% whereas it is taxable @ 4%Axle parts — Assessee paid @ 10% whereas it is taxable @ 4%

Claim for refund of excess amount rejected by assessing au-Claim for refund of excess amount rejected by assessing au-Claim for refund of excess amount rejected by assessing au-Claim for refund of excess amount rejected by assessing au-Claim for refund of excess amount rejected by assessing au-

thority — Allowed in first appeal but the Tribunal rejected thethority — Allowed in first appeal but the Tribunal rejected thethority — Allowed in first appeal but the Tribunal rejected thethority — Allowed in first appeal but the Tribunal rejected thethority — Allowed in first appeal but the Tribunal rejected the

claim — Challenged — Plea is that tax was not separately real-claim — Challenged — Plea is that tax was not separately real-claim — Challenged — Plea is that tax was not separately real-claim — Challenged — Plea is that tax was not separately real-claim — Challenged — Plea is that tax was not separately real-

ized from its purchaser — Held plea is just and proper — Or-ized from its purchaser — Held plea is just and proper — Or-ized from its purchaser — Held plea is just and proper — Or-ized from its purchaser — Held plea is just and proper — Or-ized from its purchaser — Held plea is just and proper — Or-

der and finding of the first appellate authority is correct —der and finding of the first appellate authority is correct —der and finding of the first appellate authority is correct —der and finding of the first appellate authority is correct —der and finding of the first appellate authority is correct —

Revision allowed. Revision allowed. Revision allowed. Revision allowed. Revision allowed. [Bir Bothers v. C.C.T., U.P., 2010 (49) STJ 67 All.

HC]

U.PU.PU.PU.PU.P. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE TAAAAAX ACTX ACTX ACTX ACTX ACT, 1948 — SECTION 3-, 1948 — SECTION 3-, 1948 — SECTION 3-, 1948 — SECTION 3-, 1948 — SECTION 3-A — Castor oil —A — Castor oil —A — Castor oil —A — Castor oil —A — Castor oil —

Meaning and taxability — Mixed with acid and water — Asses-Meaning and taxability — Mixed with acid and water — Asses-Meaning and taxability — Mixed with acid and water — Asses-Meaning and taxability — Mixed with acid and water — Asses-Meaning and taxability — Mixed with acid and water — Asses-

see claimed that castor oil after mixure is not a different com-see claimed that castor oil after mixure is not a different com-see claimed that castor oil after mixure is not a different com-see claimed that castor oil after mixure is not a different com-see claimed that castor oil after mixure is not a different com-

modity — Claim rejected by Tribunal — Challenged — Heldmodity — Claim rejected by Tribunal — Challenged — Heldmodity — Claim rejected by Tribunal — Challenged — Heldmodity — Claim rejected by Tribunal — Challenged — Heldmodity — Claim rejected by Tribunal — Challenged — Held

plea of assessee is not correct — After mixture castor oil be-plea of assessee is not correct — After mixture castor oil be-plea of assessee is not correct — After mixture castor oil be-plea of assessee is not correct — After mixture castor oil be-plea of assessee is not correct — After mixture castor oil be-

comes a different commodity — Tribunal’s view is correct —comes a different commodity — Tribunal’s view is correct —comes a different commodity — Tribunal’s view is correct —comes a different commodity — Tribunal’s view is correct —comes a different commodity — Tribunal’s view is correct —

Revision dismissed. Revision dismissed. Revision dismissed. Revision dismissed. Revision dismissed. [M/s Pasricha Industries Thru’s v. C.T.T. U.P.,

2010 (49) STJ 70 All. HC]

U.PU.PU.PU.PU.P. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE TAAAAAX ACTX ACTX ACTX ACTX ACT, 1948 — SECTIONS 21(2), 3-, 1948 — SECTIONS 21(2), 3-, 1948 — SECTIONS 21(2), 3-, 1948 — SECTIONS 21(2), 3-, 1948 — SECTIONS 21(2), 3-A —A —A —A —A —

Sweeten supari — TSweeten supari — TSweeten supari — TSweeten supari — TSweeten supari — Taxed @ 4% in original assessment — Ap-axed @ 4% in original assessment — Ap-axed @ 4% in original assessment — Ap-axed @ 4% in original assessment — Ap-axed @ 4% in original assessment — Ap-

proval for reassessment granted on the ground that it is tax-proval for reassessment granted on the ground that it is tax-proval for reassessment granted on the ground that it is tax-proval for reassessment granted on the ground that it is tax-proval for reassessment granted on the ground that it is tax-

able as unclassified item — Challenged in writ petition — Pleaable as unclassified item — Challenged in writ petition — Pleaable as unclassified item — Challenged in writ petition — Pleaable as unclassified item — Challenged in writ petition — Pleaable as unclassified item — Challenged in writ petition — Plea

is that sweeten supari after adding sweet does not change itsis that sweeten supari after adding sweet does not change itsis that sweeten supari after adding sweet does not change itsis that sweeten supari after adding sweet does not change itsis that sweeten supari after adding sweet does not change its

identity as held by the Apex Court and the approval is basedidentity as held by the Apex Court and the approval is basedidentity as held by the Apex Court and the approval is basedidentity as held by the Apex Court and the approval is basedidentity as held by the Apex Court and the approval is based

on merely change of opinion — Held plea is just and legal —on merely change of opinion — Held plea is just and legal —on merely change of opinion — Held plea is just and legal —on merely change of opinion — Held plea is just and legal —on merely change of opinion — Held plea is just and legal —

Proceeding u/s 21 cannot be initiated unless there is materialProceeding u/s 21 cannot be initiated unless there is materialProceeding u/s 21 cannot be initiated unless there is materialProceeding u/s 21 cannot be initiated unless there is materialProceeding u/s 21 cannot be initiated unless there is material

to form a believe that there is an escaped assessment — Noto form a believe that there is an escaped assessment — Noto form a believe that there is an escaped assessment — Noto form a believe that there is an escaped assessment — Noto form a believe that there is an escaped assessment — No-----

tices for reassessment quashed — Wtices for reassessment quashed — Wtices for reassessment quashed — Wtices for reassessment quashed — Wtices for reassessment quashed — Writ Prit Prit Prit Prit Petition allowed. etition allowed. etition allowed. etition allowed. etition allowed. [M/s

R.N. Product Thru’ Partner v. State of U.P. & Ors., 2010 (49) STJ 71 All.

HC]

U.PU.PU.PU.PU.P. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE TAAAAAX ACTX ACTX ACTX ACTX ACT, 1948 — SECTION 4-B(1)(a-1) — Pur, 1948 — SECTION 4-B(1)(a-1) — Pur, 1948 — SECTION 4-B(1)(a-1) — Pur, 1948 — SECTION 4-B(1)(a-1) — Pur, 1948 — SECTION 4-B(1)(a-1) — Pur-----

chase of oil cake sold against Fchase of oil cake sold against Fchase of oil cake sold against Fchase of oil cake sold against Fchase of oil cake sold against Form 3-B to recognition certifi-orm 3-B to recognition certifi-orm 3-B to recognition certifi-orm 3-B to recognition certifi-orm 3-B to recognition certifi-

cate nolder — Tribunal granted exemption — Challenged —cate nolder — Tribunal granted exemption — Challenged —cate nolder — Tribunal granted exemption — Challenged —cate nolder — Tribunal granted exemption — Challenged —cate nolder — Tribunal granted exemption — Challenged —

Held oil cake is not declared commodity hence benefit of ex-Held oil cake is not declared commodity hence benefit of ex-Held oil cake is not declared commodity hence benefit of ex-Held oil cake is not declared commodity hence benefit of ex-Held oil cake is not declared commodity hence benefit of ex-

emption is not available — Revision of department allowed.emption is not available — Revision of department allowed.emption is not available — Revision of department allowed.emption is not available — Revision of department allowed.emption is not available — Revision of department allowed.

[C.T.T., U.P. v. S/s Hanuman Dall Mill, Gorakhpur, 2010 (49) STJ 73 All.

HC]

CENTRAL SALES TCENTRAL SALES TCENTRAL SALES TCENTRAL SALES TCENTRAL SALES TAAAAAX ACTX ACTX ACTX ACTX ACT, 1956 — SECTIONS 8, 14 — Sew-, 1956 — SECTIONS 8, 14 — Sew-, 1956 — SECTIONS 8, 14 — Sew-, 1956 — SECTIONS 8, 14 — Sew-, 1956 — SECTIONS 8, 14 — Sew-

ing thread and cotton yarn — Distinction and taxability — As-ing thread and cotton yarn — Distinction and taxability — As-ing thread and cotton yarn — Distinction and taxability — As-ing thread and cotton yarn — Distinction and taxability — As-ing thread and cotton yarn — Distinction and taxability — As-

sessee purchased cotton yarn and sold it after twisting by me-sessee purchased cotton yarn and sold it after twisting by me-sessee purchased cotton yarn and sold it after twisting by me-sessee purchased cotton yarn and sold it after twisting by me-sessee purchased cotton yarn and sold it after twisting by me-

chanical procedure as sewing thread — Tribunal held liable tochanical procedure as sewing thread — Tribunal held liable tochanical procedure as sewing thread — Tribunal held liable tochanical procedure as sewing thread — Tribunal held liable tochanical procedure as sewing thread — Tribunal held liable to

tax @ 4% as cotton yarn being declared commodity not coveredtax @ 4% as cotton yarn being declared commodity not coveredtax @ 4% as cotton yarn being declared commodity not coveredtax @ 4% as cotton yarn being declared commodity not coveredtax @ 4% as cotton yarn being declared commodity not covered

by Fby Fby Fby Fby Form-orm-orm-orm-orm-C — Challenged — Held liable to tax @ 2% as threadC — Challenged — Held liable to tax @ 2% as threadC — Challenged — Held liable to tax @ 2% as threadC — Challenged — Held liable to tax @ 2% as threadC — Challenged — Held liable to tax @ 2% as thread

and not as cotton yarn — Revision allowed. and not as cotton yarn — Revision allowed. and not as cotton yarn — Revision allowed. and not as cotton yarn — Revision allowed. and not as cotton yarn — Revision allowed. [M/s Indian Textile v.

C.T.T. U.P., 2010 (49) STJ 74 All. HC]

U.PU.PU.PU.PU.P. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE TAAAAAX ACTX ACTX ACTX ACTX ACT, 1948 — SECTION 15-, 1948 — SECTION 15-, 1948 — SECTION 15-, 1948 — SECTION 15-, 1948 — SECTION 15-A(1)(o) — GoodsA(1)(o) — GoodsA(1)(o) — GoodsA(1)(o) — GoodsA(1)(o) — Goods

seized due to absence of Fseized due to absence of Fseized due to absence of Fseized due to absence of Fseized due to absence of Form 31 — Porm 31 — Porm 31 — Porm 31 — Porm 31 — Penalty imposed — Conenalty imposed — Conenalty imposed — Conenalty imposed — Conenalty imposed — Con-----

firmed in first appeal as well as by the Tribunal — Challengedfirmed in first appeal as well as by the Tribunal — Challengedfirmed in first appeal as well as by the Tribunal — Challengedfirmed in first appeal as well as by the Tribunal — Challengedfirmed in first appeal as well as by the Tribunal — Challenged

— Plea is that goods were raw material and F— Plea is that goods were raw material and F— Plea is that goods were raw material and F— Plea is that goods were raw material and F— Plea is that goods were raw material and Form 31 was proorm 31 was proorm 31 was proorm 31 was proorm 31 was pro-----

duced with reply to show cause notice where no defect wasduced with reply to show cause notice where no defect wasduced with reply to show cause notice where no defect wasduced with reply to show cause notice where no defect wasduced with reply to show cause notice where no defect was

found to prove evasion of tax — Held plea is just and legal —found to prove evasion of tax — Held plea is just and legal —found to prove evasion of tax — Held plea is just and legal —found to prove evasion of tax — Held plea is just and legal —found to prove evasion of tax — Held plea is just and legal —

Documents were proper without showing any intention to evadeDocuments were proper without showing any intention to evadeDocuments were proper without showing any intention to evadeDocuments were proper without showing any intention to evadeDocuments were proper without showing any intention to evade

the tax — Revision allowed and penalty deleted. the tax — Revision allowed and penalty deleted. the tax — Revision allowed and penalty deleted. the tax — Revision allowed and penalty deleted. the tax — Revision allowed and penalty deleted. [M/s Interarch

Building Product Ltd. v. C.T.T., U.P., 2010 (49) STJ 75 All. HC]

U.PU.PU.PU.PU.P. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE TAAAAAX ACTX ACTX ACTX ACTX ACT, 1948 — SECTION 29(2) — Amount, 1948 — SECTION 29(2) — Amount, 1948 — SECTION 29(2) — Amount, 1948 — SECTION 29(2) — Amount, 1948 — SECTION 29(2) — Amount

refundable under U.Prefundable under U.Prefundable under U.Prefundable under U.Prefundable under U.P. Act after judgment of the T. Act after judgment of the T. Act after judgment of the T. Act after judgment of the T. Act after judgment of the Tribunal —ribunal —ribunal —ribunal —ribunal —

Adjusted towards the liability of Entry TAdjusted towards the liability of Entry TAdjusted towards the liability of Entry TAdjusted towards the liability of Entry TAdjusted towards the liability of Entry Tax Act — Challengedax Act — Challengedax Act — Challengedax Act — Challengedax Act — Challenged

in writ petition — Held assessee is entitled to refund within writ petition — Held assessee is entitled to refund within writ petition — Held assessee is entitled to refund within writ petition — Held assessee is entitled to refund within writ petition — Held assessee is entitled to refund with

interest — Adjustment of refundable amount under a separateinterest — Adjustment of refundable amount under a separateinterest — Adjustment of refundable amount under a separateinterest — Adjustment of refundable amount under a separateinterest — Adjustment of refundable amount under a separate

Act is not legal — WAct is not legal — WAct is not legal — WAct is not legal — WAct is not legal — Writ petition allowed. rit petition allowed. rit petition allowed. rit petition allowed. rit petition allowed. [M/s Eastern Spinning v.

State of U.P. & Anr.2010 (49) STJ 77 All. HC]


books rejected on ground that same was not produced — Con-books rejected on ground that same was not produced — Con-books rejected on ground that same was not produced — Con-books rejected on ground that same was not produced — Con-books rejected on ground that same was not produced — Con-

firmed by Tribunal — Challenged — Held that assessment or-firmed by Tribunal — Challenged — Held that assessment or-firmed by Tribunal — Challenged — Held that assessment or-firmed by Tribunal — Challenged — Held that assessment or-firmed by Tribunal — Challenged — Held that assessment or-

der shows that account books were produced — Matter re-der shows that account books were produced — Matter re-der shows that account books were produced — Matter re-der shows that account books were produced — Matter re-der shows that account books were produced — Matter re-

manded to reconsider assessment. manded to reconsider assessment. manded to reconsider assessment. manded to reconsider assessment. manded to reconsider assessment. [M/s Bajrang Traders v. C.T.T.,

U.P., 2010 (49) STJ 79 All. HC]

U.PU.PU.PU.PU.P. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE TAAAAAX ACTX ACTX ACTX ACTX ACT, 1948 — SECTION 7(3) — Business of, 1948 — SECTION 7(3) — Business of, 1948 — SECTION 7(3) — Business of, 1948 — SECTION 7(3) — Business of, 1948 — SECTION 7(3) — Business of

bricks kiln — Account books rejected and estimate made —bricks kiln — Account books rejected and estimate made —bricks kiln — Account books rejected and estimate made —bricks kiln — Account books rejected and estimate made —bricks kiln — Account books rejected and estimate made —

First appellate authority accepted explanation of assessee andFirst appellate authority accepted explanation of assessee andFirst appellate authority accepted explanation of assessee andFirst appellate authority accepted explanation of assessee andFirst appellate authority accepted explanation of assessee and

appeal allowed — Tribunal restored assessment order — Chal-appeal allowed — Tribunal restored assessment order — Chal-appeal allowed — Tribunal restored assessment order — Chal-appeal allowed — Tribunal restored assessment order — Chal-appeal allowed — Tribunal restored assessment order — Chal-

lenged — Plea is that finding of first appeal cannot be reversedlenged — Plea is that finding of first appeal cannot be reversedlenged — Plea is that finding of first appeal cannot be reversedlenged — Plea is that finding of first appeal cannot be reversedlenged — Plea is that finding of first appeal cannot be reversed

without cogent reason by Tribunal — Held plea is just — Reviwithout cogent reason by Tribunal — Held plea is just — Reviwithout cogent reason by Tribunal — Held plea is just — Reviwithout cogent reason by Tribunal — Held plea is just — Reviwithout cogent reason by Tribunal — Held plea is just — Revi

sion allowed and matter remanded. sion allowed and matter remanded. sion allowed and matter remanded. sion allowed and matter remanded. sion allowed and matter remanded. [M/s Kabirpur Int Udyog,

Barabanki v. C.T.T., U.P., 2010 (49) STJ 80 All. HC]


books rejected on ground that imported goods were found inbooks rejected on ground that imported goods were found inbooks rejected on ground that imported goods were found inbooks rejected on ground that imported goods were found inbooks rejected on ground that imported goods were found in

access on which penalty was levied — Confirmed by Tribunalaccess on which penalty was levied — Confirmed by Tribunalaccess on which penalty was levied — Confirmed by Tribunalaccess on which penalty was levied — Confirmed by Tribunalaccess on which penalty was levied — Confirmed by Tribunal

— Challenged — Held estimation of turnover is finding of fact— Challenged — Held estimation of turnover is finding of fact— Challenged — Held estimation of turnover is finding of fact— Challenged — Held estimation of turnover is finding of fact— Challenged — Held estimation of turnover is finding of fact

— No error of law — Revision dismissed. — No error of law — Revision dismissed. — No error of law — Revision dismissed. — No error of law — Revision dismissed. — No error of law — Revision dismissed. [M/s Jai Balaji Steels,

Gorakhpur v. C.T.T., U.P., 2010 (49) STJ 82 All. HC]


books rejected on ground that imported goods were found inbooks rejected on ground that imported goods were found inbooks rejected on ground that imported goods were found inbooks rejected on ground that imported goods were found inbooks rejected on ground that imported goods were found in

access on which penalty was levied — Confirmed by Tribunalaccess on which penalty was levied — Confirmed by Tribunalaccess on which penalty was levied — Confirmed by Tribunalaccess on which penalty was levied — Confirmed by Tribunalaccess on which penalty was levied — Confirmed by Tribunal

— Challenged — Held estimation of turnover is finding of fact— Challenged — Held estimation of turnover is finding of fact— Challenged — Held estimation of turnover is finding of fact— Challenged — Held estimation of turnover is finding of fact— Challenged — Held estimation of turnover is finding of fact

— No error of law — Revision dismissed. — No error of law — Revision dismissed. — No error of law — Revision dismissed. — No error of law — Revision dismissed. — No error of law — Revision dismissed. [M/s Chaturbhuj Das

Ravindra Nath v. C.T.T., U.P., 2010 (49) STJ 83 All. HC]

U.PU.PU.PU.PU.P. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE TAAAAAX ACTX ACTX ACTX ACTX ACT, 1948 — SECTIONS 7(3), 12(2) — Sup-, 1948 — SECTIONS 7(3), 12(2) — Sup-, 1948 — SECTIONS 7(3), 12(2) — Sup-, 1948 — SECTIONS 7(3), 12(2) — Sup-, 1948 — SECTIONS 7(3), 12(2) — Sup-

ply of stone blast to railways — Freight charge included inply of stone blast to railways — Freight charge included inply of stone blast to railways — Freight charge included inply of stone blast to railways — Freight charge included inply of stone blast to railways — Freight charge included in

turnover — Assessee treated as manufacturer and manufac-turnover — Assessee treated as manufacturer and manufac-turnover — Assessee treated as manufacturer and manufac-turnover — Assessee treated as manufacturer and manufac-turnover — Assessee treated as manufacturer and manufac-

turing account not maintained — Confirmed by Tribunal — Chal-turing account not maintained — Confirmed by Tribunal — Chal-turing account not maintained — Confirmed by Tribunal — Chal-turing account not maintained — Confirmed by Tribunal — Chal-turing account not maintained — Confirmed by Tribunal — Chal-

lenged — Held freight charges was to borne by assessee as perlenged — Held freight charges was to borne by assessee as perlenged — Held freight charges was to borne by assessee as perlenged — Held freight charges was to borne by assessee as perlenged — Held freight charges was to borne by assessee as per

agreement hence includible in turnover — Fagreement hence includible in turnover — Fagreement hence includible in turnover — Fagreement hence includible in turnover — Fagreement hence includible in turnover — Further held thaturther held thaturther held thaturther held thaturther held that

assessee being contractor is not manufacturer — Revision partlyassessee being contractor is not manufacturer — Revision partlyassessee being contractor is not manufacturer — Revision partlyassessee being contractor is not manufacturer — Revision partlyassessee being contractor is not manufacturer — Revision partly

allowed. allowed. allowed. allowed. allowed. [M/s Chaturbhuj Das Ravindra Nath v. C.T.T., U.P., 2010 (49)

STJ 84 All. HC]


books rejected and turnover enhanced due to consumption ofbooks rejected and turnover enhanced due to consumption ofbooks rejected and turnover enhanced due to consumption ofbooks rejected and turnover enhanced due to consumption ofbooks rejected and turnover enhanced due to consumption of

power connection — Deleted by Tribunal — Challenged — Heldpower connection — Deleted by Tribunal — Challenged — Heldpower connection — Deleted by Tribunal — Challenged — Heldpower connection — Deleted by Tribunal — Challenged — Heldpower connection — Deleted by Tribunal — Challenged — Held

that assessee had no power connection for the assessment yearthat assessee had no power connection for the assessment yearthat assessee had no power connection for the assessment yearthat assessee had no power connection for the assessment yearthat assessee had no power connection for the assessment year

in question — No error of law — Revision dismissed. in question — No error of law — Revision dismissed. in question — No error of law — Revision dismissed. in question — No error of law — Revision dismissed. in question — No error of law — Revision dismissed. [C.T.T., U.P.

v. S/s Rastriya Adyogik Sansthan, 2010 (49) STJ 87 All. HC]


books rejected — Tbooks rejected — Tbooks rejected — Tbooks rejected — Tbooks rejected — Turnover enhanced — Grounds were dis-urnover enhanced — Grounds were dis-urnover enhanced — Grounds were dis-urnover enhanced — Grounds were dis-urnover enhanced — Grounds were dis-

crepancies in account books regarding sales of air coolers —crepancies in account books regarding sales of air coolers —crepancies in account books regarding sales of air coolers —crepancies in account books regarding sales of air coolers —crepancies in account books regarding sales of air coolers —

Confirmed by first and second appellate authorities — Chal-Confirmed by first and second appellate authorities — Chal-Confirmed by first and second appellate authorities — Chal-Confirmed by first and second appellate authorities — Chal-Confirmed by first and second appellate authorities — Chal-

lenged — Held, there is concurrent findings of fact — No errorlenged — Held, there is concurrent findings of fact — No errorlenged — Held, there is concurrent findings of fact — No errorlenged — Held, there is concurrent findings of fact — No errorlenged — Held, there is concurrent findings of fact — No error

of law — Revision dismissed. of law — Revision dismissed. of law — Revision dismissed. of law — Revision dismissed. of law — Revision dismissed. [Hinden Electricals (P) Ltd. v. C.T.T.

U.P., 2010 (49) STJ 88 All. HC]

U.PU.PU.PU.PU.P. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE TAAAAAX ACTX ACTX ACTX ACTX ACT, 1948 — SECTION 4-, 1948 — SECTION 4-, 1948 — SECTION 4-, 1948 — SECTION 4-, 1948 — SECTION 4-A(3) — New unitA(3) — New unitA(3) — New unitA(3) — New unitA(3) — New unit

—Eligibility certificate cancelled on ground that goods of other—Eligibility certificate cancelled on ground that goods of other—Eligibility certificate cancelled on ground that goods of other—Eligibility certificate cancelled on ground that goods of other—Eligibility certificate cancelled on ground that goods of other

firm were sold — Confirmed by Tribunal — Challenged — Pleafirm were sold — Confirmed by Tribunal — Challenged — Pleafirm were sold — Confirmed by Tribunal — Challenged — Pleafirm were sold — Confirmed by Tribunal — Challenged — Pleafirm were sold — Confirmed by Tribunal — Challenged — Plea

is that order of tax authority relating to other firm was placedis that order of tax authority relating to other firm was placedis that order of tax authority relating to other firm was placedis that order of tax authority relating to other firm was placedis that order of tax authority relating to other firm was placed

before Tribunal but not considered — Held plea is just — Mat-before Tribunal but not considered — Held plea is just — Mat-before Tribunal but not considered — Held plea is just — Mat-before Tribunal but not considered — Held plea is just — Mat-before Tribunal but not considered — Held plea is just — Mat-

ter remanded for reconsideration. ter remanded for reconsideration. ter remanded for reconsideration. ter remanded for reconsideration. ter remanded for reconsideration. [M/s V.V.S. Alloys Ltd., Kanpur

v. C.T.T., U.P., 2010 (49) STJ 89 All. HC]

U.PU.PU.PU.PU.P. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE TAAAAAX ACTX ACTX ACTX ACTX ACT, 1948 — SECTION 7(3) — Bricks kiln, 1948 — SECTION 7(3) — Bricks kiln, 1948 — SECTION 7(3) — Bricks kiln, 1948 — SECTION 7(3) — Bricks kiln, 1948 — SECTION 7(3) — Bricks kiln

— Productin of bricks on basis of survey report — Confirmed— Productin of bricks on basis of survey report — Confirmed— Productin of bricks on basis of survey report — Confirmed— Productin of bricks on basis of survey report — Confirmed— Productin of bricks on basis of survey report — Confirmed

by Tribunal — Challenged — Plea is that survey report men-by Tribunal — Challenged — Plea is that survey report men-by Tribunal — Challenged — Plea is that survey report men-by Tribunal — Challenged — Plea is that survey report men-by Tribunal — Challenged — Plea is that survey report men-

tions wrong figure and production diclosed by assessee is cor-tions wrong figure and production diclosed by assessee is cor-tions wrong figure and production diclosed by assessee is cor-tions wrong figure and production diclosed by assessee is cor-tions wrong figure and production diclosed by assessee is cor-

rect — Held plea is just — Revision allowed. rect — Held plea is just — Revision allowed. rect — Held plea is just — Revision allowed. rect — Held plea is just — Revision allowed. rect — Held plea is just — Revision allowed. [M/s Kisan Ent.

Udyog, v. C.T.T., U.P., 2010 (49) STJ 93 All. HC]

U.PU.PU.PU.PU.P. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE TAAAAAX ACTX ACTX ACTX ACTX ACT, 1948 — SECTION 4-, 1948 — SECTION 4-, 1948 — SECTION 4-, 1948 — SECTION 4-, 1948 — SECTION 4-AAAAA, EXPLANA, EXPLANA, EXPLANA, EXPLANA, EXPLANA-----

TION (5) — New unit — Claim for exemption rejected by DLCTION (5) — New unit — Claim for exemption rejected by DLCTION (5) — New unit — Claim for exemption rejected by DLCTION (5) — New unit — Claim for exemption rejected by DLCTION (5) — New unit — Claim for exemption rejected by DLC

on ground that unit was not in production for one year prior toon ground that unit was not in production for one year prior toon ground that unit was not in production for one year prior toon ground that unit was not in production for one year prior toon ground that unit was not in production for one year prior to

expansion — Confirmed by Tribunal — Challenged — Plea isexpansion — Confirmed by Tribunal — Challenged — Plea isexpansion — Confirmed by Tribunal — Challenged — Plea isexpansion — Confirmed by Tribunal — Challenged — Plea isexpansion — Confirmed by Tribunal — Challenged — Plea is

that Circular dated 06-09-99 relied by Tribunal had been setthat Circular dated 06-09-99 relied by Tribunal had been setthat Circular dated 06-09-99 relied by Tribunal had been setthat Circular dated 06-09-99 relied by Tribunal had been setthat Circular dated 06-09-99 relied by Tribunal had been set

aside by High Court — Held plea is just and legal — Sub-clauseaside by High Court — Held plea is just and legal — Sub-clauseaside by High Court — Held plea is just and legal — Sub-clauseaside by High Court — Held plea is just and legal — Sub-clauseaside by High Court — Held plea is just and legal — Sub-clause

(5) is a statutory provision which cannot be set aside by Circu-(5) is a statutory provision which cannot be set aside by Circu-(5) is a statutory provision which cannot be set aside by Circu-(5) is a statutory provision which cannot be set aside by Circu-(5) is a statutory provision which cannot be set aside by Circu-

lar of Commissioner — Assessee is entitled to eligibility certifi-lar of Commissioner — Assessee is entitled to eligibility certifi-lar of Commissioner — Assessee is entitled to eligibility certifi-lar of Commissioner — Assessee is entitled to eligibility certifi-lar of Commissioner — Assessee is entitled to eligibility certifi-

cate — Revision allowed. cate — Revision allowed. cate — Revision allowed. cate — Revision allowed. cate — Revision allowed. [M/s Singhal Paints Pvt. Ltd. v. C.T.T., U.P.,

2010 (49) STJ 94 All. HC]


books rejected and best judgment assessment made — Con-books rejected and best judgment assessment made — Con-books rejected and best judgment assessment made — Con-books rejected and best judgment assessment made — Con-books rejected and best judgment assessment made — Con-

firmed by Tribunal — Challenged — Plea is that entries in ac-firmed by Tribunal — Challenged — Plea is that entries in ac-firmed by Tribunal — Challenged — Plea is that entries in ac-firmed by Tribunal — Challenged — Plea is that entries in ac-firmed by Tribunal — Challenged — Plea is that entries in ac-

count books are more than goods shown in stock registercount books are more than goods shown in stock registercount books are more than goods shown in stock registercount books are more than goods shown in stock registercount books are more than goods shown in stock register, which, which, which, which, which

does not show any suppression — Held plea is just — Matterdoes not show any suppression — Held plea is just — Matterdoes not show any suppression — Held plea is just — Matterdoes not show any suppression — Held plea is just — Matterdoes not show any suppression — Held plea is just — Matter

remanded and revision allowed. remanded and revision allowed. remanded and revision allowed. remanded and revision allowed. remanded and revision allowed. [S/s Chhotey Lal Champa Lal v.

C.T.T., U.P., 2010 (49) STJ 99 All. HC]

U.PU.PU.PU.PU.P. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE TAAAAAX ACTX ACTX ACTX ACTX ACT, 1948 — SECTIONS 7(3), 10 — Ac-, 1948 — SECTIONS 7(3), 10 — Ac-, 1948 — SECTIONS 7(3), 10 — Ac-, 1948 — SECTIONS 7(3), 10 — Ac-, 1948 — SECTIONS 7(3), 10 — Ac-

count books rejected and turnover enhanced — Confirmed bycount books rejected and turnover enhanced — Confirmed bycount books rejected and turnover enhanced — Confirmed bycount books rejected and turnover enhanced — Confirmed bycount books rejected and turnover enhanced — Confirmed by

Tribunal — Challenged — Plea is that estimate of turnover isTribunal — Challenged — Plea is that estimate of turnover isTribunal — Challenged — Plea is that estimate of turnover isTribunal — Challenged — Plea is that estimate of turnover isTribunal — Challenged — Plea is that estimate of turnover is

arbitrary without any basis — Held plea is just and taxablearbitrary without any basis — Held plea is just and taxablearbitrary without any basis — Held plea is just and taxablearbitrary without any basis — Held plea is just and taxablearbitrary without any basis — Held plea is just and taxable

turnover is excessive — Revision allowed and matter remanded.turnover is excessive — Revision allowed and matter remanded.turnover is excessive — Revision allowed and matter remanded.turnover is excessive — Revision allowed and matter remanded.turnover is excessive — Revision allowed and matter remanded.

[S/s Manoj Traders, Jhansi v. C.T.T., U.P., 2010 (49) STJ 100 All. HC]

U.PU.PU.PU.PU.P. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE TAAAAAX ACTX ACTX ACTX ACTX ACT, 1948 — SECTION 7(3), RULE 75 —, 1948 — SECTION 7(3), RULE 75 —, 1948 — SECTION 7(3), RULE 75 —, 1948 — SECTION 7(3), RULE 75 —, 1948 — SECTION 7(3), RULE 75 —

Assessment made on presumption on basis of information —Assessment made on presumption on basis of information —Assessment made on presumption on basis of information —Assessment made on presumption on basis of information —Assessment made on presumption on basis of information —

Supply of stone ballast to PWD — Confirmed by Tribunal —Supply of stone ballast to PWD — Confirmed by Tribunal —Supply of stone ballast to PWD — Confirmed by Tribunal —Supply of stone ballast to PWD — Confirmed by Tribunal —Supply of stone ballast to PWD — Confirmed by Tribunal —

Challenged — Plea is that document relied on should haveChallenged — Plea is that document relied on should haveChallenged — Plea is that document relied on should haveChallenged — Plea is that document relied on should haveChallenged — Plea is that document relied on should have

been summoned for verification under Rule 75 — Held plea isbeen summoned for verification under Rule 75 — Held plea isbeen summoned for verification under Rule 75 — Held plea isbeen summoned for verification under Rule 75 — Held plea isbeen summoned for verification under Rule 75 — Held plea is

just and leagal — Revision allowed and matter remanded tojust and leagal — Revision allowed and matter remanded tojust and leagal — Revision allowed and matter remanded tojust and leagal — Revision allowed and matter remanded tojust and leagal — Revision allowed and matter remanded to

assessing authorityassessing authorityassessing authorityassessing authorityassessing authority. . . . . [M/s Ram Krishna Agarwal v. C.T.T., U.P., 2010

(49) STJ 101 All. HC]

U.PU.PU.PU.PU.P. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE TAAAAAX ACTX ACTX ACTX ACTX ACT, 1948 — SECTION 4-, 1948 — SECTION 4-, 1948 — SECTION 4-, 1948 — SECTION 4-, 1948 — SECTION 4-A(3) — ElgibilityA(3) — ElgibilityA(3) — ElgibilityA(3) — ElgibilityA(3) — Elgibility

certificate was granted to new unit by the DLC in which Dycertificate was granted to new unit by the DLC in which Dycertificate was granted to new unit by the DLC in which Dycertificate was granted to new unit by the DLC in which Dycertificate was granted to new unit by the DLC in which Dy.....

Commissioner (Executive), Sales TCommissioner (Executive), Sales TCommissioner (Executive), Sales TCommissioner (Executive), Sales TCommissioner (Executive), Sales Tax was member and had givenax was member and had givenax was member and had givenax was member and had givenax was member and had given

his consent — Subsequently certificate was cancelled — Con-his consent — Subsequently certificate was cancelled — Con-his consent — Subsequently certificate was cancelled — Con-his consent — Subsequently certificate was cancelled — Con-his consent — Subsequently certificate was cancelled — Con-

firmed by Tribunal — Challenged — Held that the departmentfirmed by Tribunal — Challenged — Held that the departmentfirmed by Tribunal — Challenged — Held that the departmentfirmed by Tribunal — Challenged — Held that the departmentfirmed by Tribunal — Challenged — Held that the department

could file appeal before Tribunal but the cancellation of eligi-could file appeal before Tribunal but the cancellation of eligi-could file appeal before Tribunal but the cancellation of eligi-could file appeal before Tribunal but the cancellation of eligi-could file appeal before Tribunal but the cancellation of eligi-

bility certificate was not justified — Certificate is restored tobility certificate was not justified — Certificate is restored tobility certificate was not justified — Certificate is restored tobility certificate was not justified — Certificate is restored tobility certificate was not justified — Certificate is restored to

assessee — Revision allowed. assessee — Revision allowed. assessee — Revision allowed. assessee — Revision allowed. assessee — Revision allowed. [M/s Hotz Industries Ltd., v. C.T.T.,

U.P., 2010 (49) STJ 103 All. HC]

U.PU.PU.PU.PU.P. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE TAAAAAX ACTX ACTX ACTX ACTX ACT, 1948 — SECTIONS 7(3), 28-, 1948 — SECTIONS 7(3), 28-, 1948 — SECTIONS 7(3), 28-, 1948 — SECTIONS 7(3), 28-, 1948 — SECTIONS 7(3), 28-A — Busi-A — Busi-A — Busi-A — Busi-A — Busi-

ness of leather purchased as raw material from Delhi — Fin-ness of leather purchased as raw material from Delhi — Fin-ness of leather purchased as raw material from Delhi — Fin-ness of leather purchased as raw material from Delhi — Fin-ness of leather purchased as raw material from Delhi — Fin-

ished goods sold and paid tax — Tished goods sold and paid tax — Tished goods sold and paid tax — Tished goods sold and paid tax — Tished goods sold and paid tax — Tax levied on raw material —ax levied on raw material —ax levied on raw material —ax levied on raw material —ax levied on raw material —

TTTTTax imposed which was reduced by Tax imposed which was reduced by Tax imposed which was reduced by Tax imposed which was reduced by Tax imposed which was reduced by Tribunal — Challenged —ribunal — Challenged —ribunal — Challenged —ribunal — Challenged —ribunal — Challenged —

Plea of assessee is that seized goods were raw material notPlea of assessee is that seized goods were raw material notPlea of assessee is that seized goods were raw material notPlea of assessee is that seized goods were raw material notPlea of assessee is that seized goods were raw material not

liable to tax as finished goods were paid tax — Held plea isliable to tax as finished goods were paid tax — Held plea isliable to tax as finished goods were paid tax — Held plea isliable to tax as finished goods were paid tax — Held plea isliable to tax as finished goods were paid tax — Held plea is

justified — Revision allowed. justified — Revision allowed. justified — Revision allowed. justified — Revision allowed. justified — Revision allowed. [M/s Rishi Handicraft Pvt.Ltd. v. C.T.T.,

U.P., 2010 (49) STJ 105 All. HC]

U.PU.PU.PU.PU.P. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE TAAAAAX ACTX ACTX ACTX ACTX ACT, 1948 — SECTION 7(3) — T, 1948 — SECTION 7(3) — T, 1948 — SECTION 7(3) — T, 1948 — SECTION 7(3) — T, 1948 — SECTION 7(3) — Tax lev-ax lev-ax lev-ax lev-ax lev-

ied on oil cake as well as oil manufactured from expeller —ied on oil cake as well as oil manufactured from expeller —ied on oil cake as well as oil manufactured from expeller —ied on oil cake as well as oil manufactured from expeller —ied on oil cake as well as oil manufactured from expeller —

Confirmed by Tribunal — Challenged — Plea is that ghani oilConfirmed by Tribunal — Challenged — Plea is that ghani oilConfirmed by Tribunal — Challenged — Plea is that ghani oilConfirmed by Tribunal — Challenged — Plea is that ghani oilConfirmed by Tribunal — Challenged — Plea is that ghani oil

was exempt as expeller was not though it was earlier installedwas exempt as expeller was not though it was earlier installedwas exempt as expeller was not though it was earlier installedwas exempt as expeller was not though it was earlier installedwas exempt as expeller was not though it was earlier installed

and its by product, khal (oil cake) is also exempt — Held pleaand its by product, khal (oil cake) is also exempt — Held pleaand its by product, khal (oil cake) is also exempt — Held pleaand its by product, khal (oil cake) is also exempt — Held pleaand its by product, khal (oil cake) is also exempt — Held plea

is just — Merely installation of expeller does not prove itsis just — Merely installation of expeller does not prove itsis just — Merely installation of expeller does not prove itsis just — Merely installation of expeller does not prove itsis just — Merely installation of expeller does not prove its

operation by presumption — Revision allowed. operation by presumption — Revision allowed. operation by presumption — Revision allowed. operation by presumption — Revision allowed. operation by presumption — Revision allowed. [M/s Mohan

Gramodyog Sansthan v. C.C.T., U.P., 2010 (49) STJ 107 All. HC]

U.PU.PU.PU.PU.P. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE TAAAAAX ACTX ACTX ACTX ACTX ACT, 1948 — SECTION 4-, 1948 — SECTION 4-, 1948 — SECTION 4-, 1948 — SECTION 4-, 1948 — SECTION 4-A(4)(b) — NewA(4)(b) — NewA(4)(b) — NewA(4)(b) — NewA(4)(b) — New

unit — Manufacture of soft and aerated drinks — Eligibilityunit — Manufacture of soft and aerated drinks — Eligibilityunit — Manufacture of soft and aerated drinks — Eligibilityunit — Manufacture of soft and aerated drinks — Eligibilityunit — Manufacture of soft and aerated drinks — Eligibility

certificate granted for 10 years by DLC — Appeal filed by de-certificate granted for 10 years by DLC — Appeal filed by de-certificate granted for 10 years by DLC — Appeal filed by de-certificate granted for 10 years by DLC — Appeal filed by de-certificate granted for 10 years by DLC — Appeal filed by de-

partment before Tribunal — Allowed by Tribunal on basis ofpartment before Tribunal — Allowed by Tribunal on basis ofpartment before Tribunal — Allowed by Tribunal on basis ofpartment before Tribunal — Allowed by Tribunal on basis ofpartment before Tribunal — Allowed by Tribunal on basis of

Supreme Court Judgment in case of Supreme Court Judgment in case of Supreme Court Judgment in case of Supreme Court Judgment in case of Supreme Court Judgment in case of State of Bihar vState of Bihar vState of Bihar vState of Bihar vState of Bihar v. Sarveshree. Sarveshree. Sarveshree. Sarveshree. Sarveshree

City Beverages Ltd.City Beverages Ltd.City Beverages Ltd.City Beverages Ltd.City Beverages Ltd. — Challenged — Plea is that Supreme Court — Challenged — Plea is that Supreme Court — Challenged — Plea is that Supreme Court — Challenged — Plea is that Supreme Court — Challenged — Plea is that Supreme Court

case is not applicable to present case in regard to meaning ofcase is not applicable to present case in regard to meaning ofcase is not applicable to present case in regard to meaning ofcase is not applicable to present case in regard to meaning ofcase is not applicable to present case in regard to meaning of

‘fixed capital investment’ — Held bottles and crates are essen-‘fixed capital investment’ — Held bottles and crates are essen-‘fixed capital investment’ — Held bottles and crates are essen-‘fixed capital investment’ — Held bottles and crates are essen-‘fixed capital investment’ — Held bottles and crates are essen-

tial apparatus includible in ‘fixed capital investment’ — Revi-tial apparatus includible in ‘fixed capital investment’ — Revi-tial apparatus includible in ‘fixed capital investment’ — Revi-tial apparatus includible in ‘fixed capital investment’ — Revi-tial apparatus includible in ‘fixed capital investment’ — Revi-

sion allowed. sion allowed. sion allowed. sion allowed. sion allowed. [M/s Varun Beverages Ltd. Mathura v. C.C.T., U.P., 2010

(49) STJ 110 All. HC]

U.PU.PU.PU.PU.P. V. V. V. V. VAAAAAT ACTT ACTT ACTT ACTT ACT, 2008 — Conflicting judgments — Allegedly, 2008 — Conflicting judgments — Allegedly, 2008 — Conflicting judgments — Allegedly, 2008 — Conflicting judgments — Allegedly, 2008 — Conflicting judgments — Allegedly

two conflicting judgment — Ptwo conflicting judgment — Ptwo conflicting judgment — Ptwo conflicting judgment — Ptwo conflicting judgment — Petitioneretitioneretitioneretitioneretitioner ’s view is that filing of’s view is that filing of’s view is that filing of’s view is that filing of’s view is that filing of

appeal would be only illusoru — Penalty proceeding notice is-appeal would be only illusoru — Penalty proceeding notice is-appeal would be only illusoru — Penalty proceeding notice is-appeal would be only illusoru — Penalty proceeding notice is-appeal would be only illusoru — Penalty proceeding notice is-

sued — Goods already released — Held : proceedings shall besued — Goods already released — Held : proceedings shall besued — Goods already released — Held : proceedings shall besued — Goods already released — Held : proceedings shall besued — Goods already released — Held : proceedings shall be

kept in abeyance, as interim measure.kept in abeyance, as interim measure.kept in abeyance, as interim measure.kept in abeyance, as interim measure.kept in abeyance, as interim measure.

dfFkr:i ls nks fojks/kh fu.kZ; — ;kfpdk drkZ fopkj fd vihy nk;j djuk dsoy

ejhfpdk gksxk — vFkZn.M gsrq uksfVl tkjh — eky igys gh NksM+k x;k — vkns’k ikfjr%

vkUrfjd O;oLFkk ds crkSj izfØ;k ¼vFkZn.M½ yfEcr j[kh tk;saA [M/s Rama Pulses v.

State of U.P. & Ors., 2010 (49) STJ 114 All. HC]

U.PU.PU.PU.PU.P. V. V. V. V. VAAAAAT ACTT ACTT ACTT ACTT ACT, 2008 — SECTIONS 59(5), 55 — P, 2008 — SECTIONS 59(5), 55 — P, 2008 — SECTIONS 59(5), 55 — P, 2008 — SECTIONS 59(5), 55 — P, 2008 — SECTIONS 59(5), 55 — Petitioneretitioneretitioneretitioneretitioner

sought some reliefs in respect of Section 59(5) of UP Vsought some reliefs in respect of Section 59(5) of UP Vsought some reliefs in respect of Section 59(5) of UP Vsought some reliefs in respect of Section 59(5) of UP Vsought some reliefs in respect of Section 59(5) of UP Vat Act,at Act,at Act,at Act,at Act,

2008 — Held : Petitioner may challenge the assessment order2008 — Held : Petitioner may challenge the assessment order2008 — Held : Petitioner may challenge the assessment order2008 — Held : Petitioner may challenge the assessment order2008 — Held : Petitioner may challenge the assessment order

under Section 55 of the Act, raising all his plea — Wunder Section 55 of the Act, raising all his plea — Wunder Section 55 of the Act, raising all his plea — Wunder Section 55 of the Act, raising all his plea — Wunder Section 55 of the Act, raising all his plea — Writ petitionrit petitionrit petitionrit petitionrit petition

disposed accordinglydisposed accordinglydisposed accordinglydisposed accordinglydisposed accordingly.....

;w0ih0 oSV vf/kfu;e 2008 ds lEcU/k esa ;kfpdk drkZ us dqN jkgrsa ekWaxh — fu.kZ;%

;kfpdk drkZ /kkjk 55 ds vUrxZr fu/kkZj.k vkns”k ds izfr vius rdZ nsrs gq,] pqukSrh izLrqr

dj ldrk gS — rn~uqlkj ;kfpdk dk fuLrkj.kA [M/s United Traders v. State of

U.P. & Ors., 2010 (49) STJ 115 All. HC]

SECTION 17(5) OF U.PSECTION 17(5) OF U.PSECTION 17(5) OF U.PSECTION 17(5) OF U.PSECTION 17(5) OF U.P. V. V. V. V. VAAAAAT ACTT ACTT ACTT ACTT ACT, 2008 — P, 2008 — P, 2008 — P, 2008 — P, 2008 — Petitioner firmetitioner firmetitioner firmetitioner firmetitioner firm

applied for grant of registration under UP Tapplied for grant of registration under UP Tapplied for grant of registration under UP Tapplied for grant of registration under UP Tapplied for grant of registration under UP Trade Trade Trade Trade Trade Tax Act onax Act onax Act onax Act onax Act on

17.12.07 — UP V17.12.07 — UP V17.12.07 — UP V17.12.07 — UP V17.12.07 — UP VAAAAAT Act come in force on 01.01.2008 — Regis-T Act come in force on 01.01.2008 — Regis-T Act come in force on 01.01.2008 — Regis-T Act come in force on 01.01.2008 — Regis-T Act come in force on 01.01.2008 — Regis-

tering authority granted certificate on 08.02.08 — Commissionertering authority granted certificate on 08.02.08 — Commissionertering authority granted certificate on 08.02.08 — Commissionertering authority granted certificate on 08.02.08 — Commissionertering authority granted certificate on 08.02.08 — Commissioner

found that on commencement of Vfound that on commencement of Vfound that on commencement of Vfound that on commencement of Vfound that on commencement of VAAAAAT Act, the registrationT Act, the registrationT Act, the registrationT Act, the registrationT Act, the registration

authoratically came to an end — Application of firm cancelledauthoratically came to an end — Application of firm cancelledauthoratically came to an end — Application of firm cancelledauthoratically came to an end — Application of firm cancelledauthoratically came to an end — Application of firm cancelled

for issuance of Ffor issuance of Ffor issuance of Ffor issuance of Ffor issuance of Form 38 — Held : the registering authority oughtorm 38 — Held : the registering authority oughtorm 38 — Held : the registering authority oughtorm 38 — Held : the registering authority oughtorm 38 — Held : the registering authority ought

to have granted registration under UP Tto have granted registration under UP Tto have granted registration under UP Tto have granted registration under UP Tto have granted registration under UP Trade Trade Trade Trade Trade Tax Act — Pax Act — Pax Act — Pax Act — Pax Act — Peti-eti-eti-eti-eti-

tioner to file application in prescribed form and manner withintioner to file application in prescribed form and manner withintioner to file application in prescribed form and manner withintioner to file application in prescribed form and manner withintioner to file application in prescribed form and manner within

21 days before the authority concerned — Petition allowed.21 days before the authority concerned — Petition allowed.21 days before the authority concerned — Petition allowed.21 days before the authority concerned — Petition allowed.21 days before the authority concerned — Petition allowed.

;kfpdk drkZ QeZ us fnukad 17-12-07 dks iathdj.k nsus gsrq ;w0ih0 VªsM VSDl vf/kfu;e

ds rgr vkosnu fd;k — UP VAT vf/kdj.k 01&01&08 ls ykxw gqvk — iathdj.k drkZ

vf/kdj.k us fnukad 08&02&08 dks iathdj.k fd;k — deh”kuj us ik;k fd VAT vf/kdj.k

ds ykxw gksaus ij iathdj.k Lor% gh lekIr gks x;k — QWkeZ&38 ds fy;s fn;s x;s vkosnu

dks fujLr dj fn;k — fu.kZ;% iathdj.k nsus okys vf/kdkjh dks iathdj.k UP O;kikj dk

vf/kdj.k ds vUrxZr djuk pkfg;s Fkk — ;kfpdk drkZ dks lEcfU/kr izkf/kdkjh ds le{k

21 fnu ds vUnj vkosnu djuk gksxk — izkf/kdkjh dks mls le; okf/kr gksrs gq, Hkh fu.khZr

djuk gksxk — ;kfpdk LohdkjA [M/s Sahu Motors v. State of U.P. & Ors., 2010

(49) STJ 117 All. HC]

U.PU.PU.PU.PU.P. V. V. V. V. VAAAAAT ACTT ACTT ACTT ACTT ACT, 2008 — SECTION 34 — U.P, 2008 — SECTION 34 — U.P, 2008 — SECTION 34 — U.P, 2008 — SECTION 34 — U.P, 2008 — SECTION 34 — U.P. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE TAAAAAX ACTX ACTX ACTX ACTX ACT,,,,,

1948 — SECTION 8-D — Notification dated 4.3.08 in respect of1948 — SECTION 8-D — Notification dated 4.3.08 in respect of1948 — SECTION 8-D — Notification dated 4.3.08 in respect of1948 — SECTION 8-D — Notification dated 4.3.08 in respect of1948 — SECTION 8-D — Notification dated 4.3.08 in respect of

deduction of tax at source on works contract by contracteededuction of tax at source on works contract by contracteededuction of tax at source on works contract by contracteededuction of tax at source on works contract by contracteededuction of tax at source on works contract by contractee

challenged — Held : assessing authority when approached bychallenged — Held : assessing authority when approached bychallenged — Held : assessing authority when approached bychallenged — Held : assessing authority when approached bychallenged — Held : assessing authority when approached by

the contractorthe contractorthe contractorthe contractorthe contractor, will issue necessary direction to the contractee, will issue necessary direction to the contractee, will issue necessary direction to the contractee, will issue necessary direction to the contractee, will issue necessary direction to the contractee

with regard to his claim that he is either not liable to pay taxwith regard to his claim that he is either not liable to pay taxwith regard to his claim that he is either not liable to pay taxwith regard to his claim that he is either not liable to pay taxwith regard to his claim that he is either not liable to pay tax

on such sale, or is liable to pay tax on amount lessser thanon such sale, or is liable to pay tax on amount lessser thanon such sale, or is liable to pay tax on amount lessser thanon such sale, or is liable to pay tax on amount lessser thanon such sale, or is liable to pay tax on amount lessser than

amount of deduction — Wamount of deduction — Wamount of deduction — Wamount of deduction — Wamount of deduction — Writ petition allowed to this extent.rit petition allowed to this extent.rit petition allowed to this extent.rit petition allowed to this extent.rit petition allowed to this extent.

fnukad 04-03-08 dh dk;Z lafonk ds ekeys esa lzksr ij dj dVkSrh dh vf/kwlpuk dks

pqukSrh — fu.kZ;% tc dk;Z lEiknu drkZ dj fu/kkZj.k izkf/kdkjh ls vuqjks/k dks rks og dk;Z

iznkrk dks funsZf’kr djsxk fd ;k rks og ,slh fcØh ij dj nsus ds fy;s fcYdqy mRrjnk;h

ugha gS] ;k og dVkSrh dh x;h jkf’k ls de dj nsxk — bl lhek rd ;kfpdk LohdkjA[M/s Satnam Engineers v. State of U.P. & Ors., 2010 (49) STJ 120 All.

HC]

U.PU.PU.PU.PU.P. V. V. V. V. VAAAAAT ACTT ACTT ACTT ACTT ACT, 2008 — SECTION 50 — Goods were inter, 2008 — SECTION 50 — Goods were inter, 2008 — SECTION 50 — Goods were inter, 2008 — SECTION 50 — Goods were inter, 2008 — SECTION 50 — Goods were inter-----

cepted — Plea this tgat driver did not possess transit declara-cepted — Plea this tgat driver did not possess transit declara-cepted — Plea this tgat driver did not possess transit declara-cepted — Plea this tgat driver did not possess transit declara-cepted — Plea this tgat driver did not possess transit declara-

tion form — Alleged violation of circular of commissioner datedtion form — Alleged violation of circular of commissioner datedtion form — Alleged violation of circular of commissioner datedtion form — Alleged violation of circular of commissioner datedtion form — Alleged violation of circular of commissioner dated

30.07.2009 — Held : Goods be released upon furnishing of se-30.07.2009 — Held : Goods be released upon furnishing of se-30.07.2009 — Held : Goods be released upon furnishing of se-30.07.2009 — Held : Goods be released upon furnishing of se-30.07.2009 — Held : Goods be released upon furnishing of se-

curity — Revision disposed of accordinglycurity — Revision disposed of accordinglycurity — Revision disposed of accordinglycurity — Revision disposed of accordinglycurity — Revision disposed of accordingly.....

eky jksdk x;k & rdZ ;g fd Mªkoj ds ikl VªkaftV ?kks’k.kk&i= ekStwn ugha Fkk &

dfFkr :i ls deh”kuj ds ldqZyj dk mYya?ku & fu.kZ;% izfrHkwfr izLrqr djus ij eky NksM+

fn;k tk;s & fjohtu rn~uqlkj fuLrkfjrA [Raj Singh v. Trrade Tax Tribunal, U.P.

& Anr., 2010 (49) STJ 131 All. HC]

U.PU.PU.PU.PU.P. T. T. T. T. Trade Trade Trade Trade Trade Tax ACTax ACTax ACTax ACTax ACT, 19488 — SECTIONS 4(A), 4(BB), 41(8), 19488 — SECTIONS 4(A), 4(BB), 41(8), 19488 — SECTIONS 4(A), 4(BB), 41(8), 19488 — SECTIONS 4(A), 4(BB), 41(8), 19488 — SECTIONS 4(A), 4(BB), 41(8)

— Whether benefit of Section 4A, be given first before making— Whether benefit of Section 4A, be given first before making— Whether benefit of Section 4A, be given first before making— Whether benefit of Section 4A, be given first before making— Whether benefit of Section 4A, be given first before making

assessment of tax under Section 4(BB) — Held: Yassessment of tax under Section 4(BB) — Held: Yassessment of tax under Section 4(BB) — Held: Yassessment of tax under Section 4(BB) — Held: Yassessment of tax under Section 4(BB) — Held: Yes — Assess-es — Assess-es — Assess-es — Assess-es — Assess-

ing Officer erred in law not allowing benefit so — Revisioning Officer erred in law not allowing benefit so — Revisioning Officer erred in law not allowing benefit so — Revisioning Officer erred in law not allowing benefit so — Revisioning Officer erred in law not allowing benefit so — Revision

dismissed.dismissed.dismissed.dismissed.dismissed.

D;k /kkjk 4, dk ykHk dj fu/kkZj.k ls igys gh fn;k tkuk pkfg, & fu.kZ;% gkW & dj

fu/kkZj.k vf/kdkjh us ,slk u djds fof/kd =qfV dh & fjohtu fujLrA [C.T.T., U.P. v.

Prem Casting Pvt. Ltd., 2010 (49) STJ 133 All. HC]

U.PU.PU.PU.PU.P. V. V. V. V. VAAAAAT ACTT ACTT ACTT ACTT ACT, 2008 — SECTION 48(2) — Whether decision, 2008 — SECTION 48(2) — Whether decision, 2008 — SECTION 48(2) — Whether decision, 2008 — SECTION 48(2) — Whether decision, 2008 — SECTION 48(2) — Whether decision

of seizure of Truck was obligatory to communicate to the per-of seizure of Truck was obligatory to communicate to the per-of seizure of Truck was obligatory to communicate to the per-of seizure of Truck was obligatory to communicate to the per-of seizure of Truck was obligatory to communicate to the per-

son concerned within 24 hours — Held: Yson concerned within 24 hours — Held: Yson concerned within 24 hours — Held: Yson concerned within 24 hours — Held: Yson concerned within 24 hours — Held: Yes — Show causees — Show causees — Show causees — Show causees — Show cause

notice to the Assistant Commissioner for derelication of dutynotice to the Assistant Commissioner for derelication of dutynotice to the Assistant Commissioner for derelication of dutynotice to the Assistant Commissioner for derelication of dutynotice to the Assistant Commissioner for derelication of duty

— Personal affidavit to the file.— Personal affidavit to the file.— Personal affidavit to the file.— Personal affidavit to the file.— Personal affidavit to the file.

D;k Vªd ds jksds j[kus dk fu.kZ; lEcfU/kr O;fDr dks 24 ?k.Vksa ds vUnj gh crkuk

vko”;d Fkk & fu.kZ;% gkW & lgk;d deh”kuj dks dkj.k crkvksa uksfVl tkjh & O;fDrxr

“kiFki= izLrqr djus ds vkns”kA [Goverdhan Traders, Agra v. State of U.P. &

Ors., 2010 (49) STJ 134 All. HC]

U.PU.PU.PU.PU.P. V. V. V. V. VAAAAAT ACTT ACTT ACTT ACTT ACT, 2008 — SECTION 25(1) — Whether when the, 2008 — SECTION 25(1) — Whether when the, 2008 — SECTION 25(1) — Whether when the, 2008 — SECTION 25(1) — Whether when the, 2008 — SECTION 25(1) — Whether when the

annual return has been filed, provisional assessment ordersannual return has been filed, provisional assessment ordersannual return has been filed, provisional assessment ordersannual return has been filed, provisional assessment ordersannual return has been filed, provisional assessment orders

cannot be passed by the Assessing Authority — Held: Provi-cannot be passed by the Assessing Authority — Held: Provi-cannot be passed by the Assessing Authority — Held: Provi-cannot be passed by the Assessing Authority — Held: Provi-cannot be passed by the Assessing Authority — Held: Provi-

sional assessment cannot be made — Impugned assessmentsional assessment cannot be made — Impugned assessmentsional assessment cannot be made — Impugned assessmentsional assessment cannot be made — Impugned assessmentsional assessment cannot be made — Impugned assessment

orders Kept in abeyance — Interim orders.orders Kept in abeyance — Interim orders.orders Kept in abeyance — Interim orders.orders Kept in abeyance — Interim orders.orders Kept in abeyance — Interim orders.

;fn okf’kZd fjVuZ nkf[ky dj nh x;h gks] D;k mlds ckn Hkh izksfotuy fu/kkZj.k vkns”k

ikfjr fd;k tk ldrk gS & fu.kZ;% izksfotuy fu/kkZj.k vkns”k tkjh ugha fd;s tk ldrs &

tkjh vkns”kksa dks jksdk x;k & vUrfje vkns”kA [M/s Indus Towers Ltd. Luck., v.


U.PU.PU.PU.PU.P. T. T. T. T. Trade Trade Trade Trade Trade Tax ACTax ACTax ACTax ACTax ACT, 1948 — SECTION 2 — Coal imported by, 1948 — SECTION 2 — Coal imported by, 1948 — SECTION 2 — Coal imported by, 1948 — SECTION 2 — Coal imported by, 1948 — SECTION 2 — Coal imported by

samittee for supply to its members — Department charged taxsamittee for supply to its members — Department charged taxsamittee for supply to its members — Department charged taxsamittee for supply to its members — Department charged taxsamittee for supply to its members — Department charged tax

by including freight in price of turnover as the railway receiptby including freight in price of turnover as the railway receiptby including freight in price of turnover as the railway receiptby including freight in price of turnover as the railway receiptby including freight in price of turnover as the railway receipt

were in name of samittee — Confirmed by Tribunal — Chal-were in name of samittee — Confirmed by Tribunal — Chal-were in name of samittee — Confirmed by Tribunal — Chal-were in name of samittee — Confirmed by Tribunal — Chal-were in name of samittee — Confirmed by Tribunal — Chal-

lenged — Held there is concurrent finding of fact that coal waslenged — Held there is concurrent finding of fact that coal waslenged — Held there is concurrent finding of fact that coal waslenged — Held there is concurrent finding of fact that coal waslenged — Held there is concurrent finding of fact that coal was

imported by samittee making payment of freight hence it couldimported by samittee making payment of freight hence it couldimported by samittee making payment of freight hence it couldimported by samittee making payment of freight hence it couldimported by samittee making payment of freight hence it could

be included in its turnover — Revision dismissed.be included in its turnover — Revision dismissed.be included in its turnover — Revision dismissed.be included in its turnover — Revision dismissed.be included in its turnover — Revision dismissed.[Gramin Kanch

Pakai Bhatti Samiti Firozabad v. C.T.T., U.P., 2010 (49) STJ 175 All. HC]

U.PU.PU.PU.PU.P. T. T. T. T. Trade Trade Trade Trade Trade Tax ACTax ACTax ACTax ACTax ACT, 1948 — SECTION 15-, 1948 — SECTION 15-, 1948 — SECTION 15-, 1948 — SECTION 15-, 1948 — SECTION 15-A(1)(c) — PA(1)(c) — PA(1)(c) — PA(1)(c) — PA(1)(c) — Penaltyenaltyenaltyenaltyenalty

imposed for Aimposed for Aimposed for Aimposed for Aimposed for A.Y.Y.Y.Y.Y. 1996-97 on basis of material found in survey. 1996-97 on basis of material found in survey. 1996-97 on basis of material found in survey. 1996-97 on basis of material found in survey. 1996-97 on basis of material found in survey

dated 19.09.07 — Confirmed by Tribunal — Challenged — Pleadated 19.09.07 — Confirmed by Tribunal — Challenged — Pleadated 19.09.07 — Confirmed by Tribunal — Challenged — Pleadated 19.09.07 — Confirmed by Tribunal — Challenged — Pleadated 19.09.07 — Confirmed by Tribunal — Challenged — Plea

is that survey which is basis of penalty is not related to theis that survey which is basis of penalty is not related to theis that survey which is basis of penalty is not related to theis that survey which is basis of penalty is not related to theis that survey which is basis of penalty is not related to the

period of penalty — Held Plea is just — Penalty deleted andperiod of penalty — Held Plea is just — Penalty deleted andperiod of penalty — Held Plea is just — Penalty deleted andperiod of penalty — Held Plea is just — Penalty deleted andperiod of penalty — Held Plea is just — Penalty deleted and

revision allowed. revision allowed. revision allowed. revision allowed. revision allowed. [Bombay Calcutta Road Carrier v. C.T.T., U.P., 2010

(49) STJ 177 All. HC]

U.PU.PU.PU.PU.P. T. T. T. T. TRADERADERADERADERADE T T T T TAAAAAX X X X X ACTACTACTACTACT, 1948 — SECTIONS 7(3), 10 — Old, 1948 — SECTIONS 7(3), 10 — Old, 1948 — SECTIONS 7(3), 10 — Old, 1948 — SECTIONS 7(3), 10 — Old, 1948 — SECTIONS 7(3), 10 — Old

cars purchased and sold in Delhi out of State — Tcars purchased and sold in Delhi out of State — Tcars purchased and sold in Delhi out of State — Tcars purchased and sold in Delhi out of State — Tcars purchased and sold in Delhi out of State — Tax levied onax levied onax levied onax levied onax levied on

ground that assessee sold car in U.Pground that assessee sold car in U.Pground that assessee sold car in U.Pground that assessee sold car in U.Pground that assessee sold car in U.P. and had no branch office. and had no branch office. and had no branch office. and had no branch office. and had no branch office

in Delhi — Confirmed by Tribunal — Challenged — Plea is thatin Delhi — Confirmed by Tribunal — Challenged — Plea is thatin Delhi — Confirmed by Tribunal — Challenged — Plea is thatin Delhi — Confirmed by Tribunal — Challenged — Plea is thatin Delhi — Confirmed by Tribunal — Challenged — Plea is that

transaction of sale did not take place within State of U.Ptransaction of sale did not take place within State of U.Ptransaction of sale did not take place within State of U.Ptransaction of sale did not take place within State of U.Ptransaction of sale did not take place within State of U.P., hence., hence., hence., hence., hence

no tax liability in U.Pno tax liability in U.Pno tax liability in U.Pno tax liability in U.Pno tax liability in U.P. — held, plea is tenable but T. — held, plea is tenable but T. — held, plea is tenable but T. — held, plea is tenable but T. — held, plea is tenable but Tribunal didribunal didribunal didribunal didribunal did

not consider nature of transaction, hence case remanded fornot consider nature of transaction, hence case remanded fornot consider nature of transaction, hence case remanded fornot consider nature of transaction, hence case remanded fornot consider nature of transaction, hence case remanded for

reconsideration. reconsideration. reconsideration. reconsideration. reconsideration. [C.L. Gupta & Sons v. C.C.T., U.P., 2010 (49) STJ 180

All. HC]

U.PU.PU.PU.PU.P. T. T. T. T. TRADERADERADERADERADE T T T T TAAAAAX X X X X ACTACTACTACTACT, 1948 — SECTION 7-D — Bricks kiln, 1948 — SECTION 7-D — Bricks kiln, 1948 — SECTION 7-D — Bricks kiln, 1948 — SECTION 7-D — Bricks kiln, 1948 — SECTION 7-D — Bricks kiln

— Compounding scheme upto 30.09.96 — 3 lacs bricks found in— Compounding scheme upto 30.09.96 — 3 lacs bricks found in— Compounding scheme upto 30.09.96 — 3 lacs bricks found in— Compounding scheme upto 30.09.96 — 3 lacs bricks found in— Compounding scheme upto 30.09.96 — 3 lacs bricks found in

survey dated 12-01-96 — Assessment made on presumption ofsurvey dated 12-01-96 — Assessment made on presumption ofsurvey dated 12-01-96 — Assessment made on presumption ofsurvey dated 12-01-96 — Assessment made on presumption ofsurvey dated 12-01-96 — Assessment made on presumption of

sale — Confirmed by Tribunal — Challenged — Plea is thatsale — Confirmed by Tribunal — Challenged — Plea is thatsale — Confirmed by Tribunal — Challenged — Plea is thatsale — Confirmed by Tribunal — Challenged — Plea is thatsale — Confirmed by Tribunal — Challenged — Plea is that

bricks were sold to father of assessee prior to 01-10-96 — Heldbricks were sold to father of assessee prior to 01-10-96 — Heldbricks were sold to father of assessee prior to 01-10-96 — Heldbricks were sold to father of assessee prior to 01-10-96 — Heldbricks were sold to father of assessee prior to 01-10-96 — Held

plea is just but there is no clear finding in regard to sale ofplea is just but there is no clear finding in regard to sale ofplea is just but there is no clear finding in regard to sale ofplea is just but there is no clear finding in regard to sale ofplea is just but there is no clear finding in regard to sale of

bricks — Matter remanded. bricks — Matter remanded. bricks — Matter remanded. bricks — Matter remanded. bricks — Matter remanded. [M/s Naveen Sujan Bricks Field, Agra v.

C.T.T., U.P., 2010 (49) STJ 182 All. HC]

U.PU.PU.PU.PU.P. T. T. T. T. TRADERADERADERADERADE T T T T TAAAAAX X X X X ACTACTACTACTACT, 1948 — SECTION 7(3) — Remand —, 1948 — SECTION 7(3) — Remand —, 1948 — SECTION 7(3) — Remand —, 1948 — SECTION 7(3) — Remand —, 1948 — SECTION 7(3) — Remand —

Scope — FScope — FScope — FScope — FScope — Food grain seized — Pood grain seized — Pood grain seized — Pood grain seized — Pood grain seized — Penalty and assessment made —enalty and assessment made —enalty and assessment made —enalty and assessment made —enalty and assessment made —

Confirmed by Tribunal — Estimate made at 11 lacs on seizedConfirmed by Tribunal — Estimate made at 11 lacs on seizedConfirmed by Tribunal — Estimate made at 11 lacs on seizedConfirmed by Tribunal — Estimate made at 11 lacs on seizedConfirmed by Tribunal — Estimate made at 11 lacs on seized

goods valued at Rs. 38,000 — Challenged — Held estimate isgoods valued at Rs. 38,000 — Challenged — Held estimate isgoods valued at Rs. 38,000 — Challenged — Held estimate isgoods valued at Rs. 38,000 — Challenged — Held estimate isgoods valued at Rs. 38,000 — Challenged — Held estimate is

excessive without any basis — Matter remanded and revisionexcessive without any basis — Matter remanded and revisionexcessive without any basis — Matter remanded and revisionexcessive without any basis — Matter remanded and revisionexcessive without any basis — Matter remanded and revision

allowed. allowed. allowed. allowed. allowed. [M/s Ram Prakash Agrawal Dal Mill v. C.T.T., U.P., 2010 (49)

STJ 183 All. HC]

U.PU.PU.PU.PU.P. T. T. T. T. TRADERADERADERADERADE T T T T TAAAAAX X X X X ACTACTACTACTACT, 1948 — SECTION 4-, 1948 — SECTION 4-, 1948 — SECTION 4-, 1948 — SECTION 4-, 1948 — SECTION 4-A(3) — PA(3) — PA(3) — PA(3) — PA(3) — Produc-roduc-roduc-roduc-roduc-

tion of steel and ingots — Eligibility certificate granted — Can-tion of steel and ingots — Eligibility certificate granted — Can-tion of steel and ingots — Eligibility certificate granted — Can-tion of steel and ingots — Eligibility certificate granted — Can-tion of steel and ingots — Eligibility certificate granted — Can-

celled on ground that billets was made as diversified productcelled on ground that billets was made as diversified productcelled on ground that billets was made as diversified productcelled on ground that billets was made as diversified productcelled on ground that billets was made as diversified product

— Confirmed by Tribunal — Challenged — Plea is that certifi-— Confirmed by Tribunal — Challenged — Plea is that certifi-— Confirmed by Tribunal — Challenged — Plea is that certifi-— Confirmed by Tribunal — Challenged — Plea is that certifi-— Confirmed by Tribunal — Challenged — Plea is that certifi-

cate was not misused and there is no mistake apparent oncate was not misused and there is no mistake apparent oncate was not misused and there is no mistake apparent oncate was not misused and there is no mistake apparent oncate was not misused and there is no mistake apparent on

record — Held plea is just — Revision allowed. record — Held plea is just — Revision allowed. record — Held plea is just — Revision allowed. record — Held plea is just — Revision allowed. record — Held plea is just — Revision allowed. [M/s Somani Iron

& Steels Ltd., Kanpur v. C.T.T., U.P., 2010 (49) STJ 185 All. HC]

U.PU.PU.PU.PU.P. T. T. T. T. TRADERADERADERADERADE T T T T TAAAAAX X X X X ACTACTACTACTACT, 1948 — SECTIONS 2, 7(3) — T, 1948 — SECTIONS 2, 7(3) — T, 1948 — SECTIONS 2, 7(3) — T, 1948 — SECTIONS 2, 7(3) — T, 1948 — SECTIONS 2, 7(3) — Turnurnurnurnurn-----

over and assessment — Biscuits manufactured in other Stateover and assessment — Biscuits manufactured in other Stateover and assessment — Biscuits manufactured in other Stateover and assessment — Biscuits manufactured in other Stateover and assessment — Biscuits manufactured in other State

dispatched to manufacture in State by truck — Goods dam-dispatched to manufacture in State by truck — Goods dam-dispatched to manufacture in State by truck — Goods dam-dispatched to manufacture in State by truck — Goods dam-dispatched to manufacture in State by truck — Goods dam-

aged in accident — Insurance company paid part amount asaged in accident — Insurance company paid part amount asaged in accident — Insurance company paid part amount asaged in accident — Insurance company paid part amount asaged in accident — Insurance company paid part amount as

damage — Remaining amount was treated as sales and taxdamage — Remaining amount was treated as sales and taxdamage — Remaining amount was treated as sales and taxdamage — Remaining amount was treated as sales and taxdamage — Remaining amount was treated as sales and tax

levied — First appeal granted relief to extent of insurancelevied — First appeal granted relief to extent of insurancelevied — First appeal granted relief to extent of insurancelevied — First appeal granted relief to extent of insurancelevied — First appeal granted relief to extent of insurance

amount — Confirmed by Tribunal — Challenged — Held thatamount — Confirmed by Tribunal — Challenged — Held thatamount — Confirmed by Tribunal — Challenged — Held thatamount — Confirmed by Tribunal — Challenged — Held thatamount — Confirmed by Tribunal — Challenged — Held that

assessee failed to prove that balanced goods were also givenassessee failed to prove that balanced goods were also givenassessee failed to prove that balanced goods were also givenassessee failed to prove that balanced goods were also givenassessee failed to prove that balanced goods were also given

up to insurance company hence the same is part of turnoverup to insurance company hence the same is part of turnoverup to insurance company hence the same is part of turnoverup to insurance company hence the same is part of turnoverup to insurance company hence the same is part of turnover

liable to tax — Ravision dismissed. liable to tax — Ravision dismissed. liable to tax — Ravision dismissed. liable to tax — Ravision dismissed. liable to tax — Ravision dismissed. [M/s Parle Biscuits Pvt. Ltd. v.

C.T.T., U.P., 2010 (49) STJ 188 All. HC]

U.PU.PU.PU.PU.P. T. T. T. T. TRADERADERADERADERADE T T T T TAAAAAX X X X X ACTACTACTACTACT, 1948 — SECTION 22 — Rectification, 1948 — SECTION 22 — Rectification, 1948 — SECTION 22 — Rectification, 1948 — SECTION 22 — Rectification, 1948 — SECTION 22 — Rectification

of mistake — Scope — Assessee claimed sale of goods on be-of mistake — Scope — Assessee claimed sale of goods on be-of mistake — Scope — Assessee claimed sale of goods on be-of mistake — Scope — Assessee claimed sale of goods on be-of mistake — Scope — Assessee claimed sale of goods on be-

half of Ex-U.Phalf of Ex-U.Phalf of Ex-U.Phalf of Ex-U.Phalf of Ex-U.P. P. P. P. P. Principals — Rejected — Confirmed by Trincipals — Rejected — Confirmed by Trincipals — Rejected — Confirmed by Trincipals — Rejected — Confirmed by Trincipals — Rejected — Confirmed by Tribunalribunalribunalribunalribunal

— Challenged — Plea is that decision in Hanuman T— Challenged — Plea is that decision in Hanuman T— Challenged — Plea is that decision in Hanuman T— Challenged — Plea is that decision in Hanuman T— Challenged — Plea is that decision in Hanuman Trading Corading Corading Corading Corading Co.....

applies in present case — Held plea is just — Dicision of Highapplies in present case — Held plea is just — Dicision of Highapplies in present case — Held plea is just — Dicision of Highapplies in present case — Held plea is just — Dicision of Highapplies in present case — Held plea is just — Dicision of High

Court apply in proceeding u/s 22 — revision allowed and mat-Court apply in proceeding u/s 22 — revision allowed and mat-Court apply in proceeding u/s 22 — revision allowed and mat-Court apply in proceeding u/s 22 — revision allowed and mat-Court apply in proceeding u/s 22 — revision allowed and mat-

ter remanded. ter remanded. ter remanded. ter remanded. ter remanded. [M/s Pamar Nath Onkar Nath v. C.T.T., U.P., 2010 (49)

STJ 192 All. HC]

U.PU.PU.PU.PU.P. T. T. T. T. TRADERADERADERADERADE T T T T TAAAAAX X X X X ACTACTACTACTACT, 1948 — SECTION 2(i) — T, 1948 — SECTION 2(i) — T, 1948 — SECTION 2(i) — T, 1948 — SECTION 2(i) — T, 1948 — SECTION 2(i) — Turnover —urnover —urnover —urnover —urnover —

Meaning and Scope — Amount collected as trade tax was shownMeaning and Scope — Amount collected as trade tax was shownMeaning and Scope — Amount collected as trade tax was shownMeaning and Scope — Amount collected as trade tax was shownMeaning and Scope — Amount collected as trade tax was shown

in account books by mistake — First appeal accepted explana-in account books by mistake — First appeal accepted explana-in account books by mistake — First appeal accepted explana-in account books by mistake — First appeal accepted explana-in account books by mistake — First appeal accepted explana-

tion and deleted amount from turnover — Tribunal restoredtion and deleted amount from turnover — Tribunal restoredtion and deleted amount from turnover — Tribunal restoredtion and deleted amount from turnover — Tribunal restoredtion and deleted amount from turnover — Tribunal restored

assessment order including the collected amount in turnoverassessment order including the collected amount in turnoverassessment order including the collected amount in turnoverassessment order including the collected amount in turnoverassessment order including the collected amount in turnover

— Challenged — Plea is that collected tax was paid to revenue— Challenged — Plea is that collected tax was paid to revenue— Challenged — Plea is that collected tax was paid to revenue— Challenged — Plea is that collected tax was paid to revenue— Challenged — Plea is that collected tax was paid to revenue

and hence it was included in turnover by mistake — Held pleaand hence it was included in turnover by mistake — Held pleaand hence it was included in turnover by mistake — Held pleaand hence it was included in turnover by mistake — Held pleaand hence it was included in turnover by mistake — Held plea

is just — Amount collected is not to be included in the netis just — Amount collected is not to be included in the netis just — Amount collected is not to be included in the netis just — Amount collected is not to be included in the netis just — Amount collected is not to be included in the net

turnover of the assessee — Revision allowed and order of firstturnover of the assessee — Revision allowed and order of firstturnover of the assessee — Revision allowed and order of firstturnover of the assessee — Revision allowed and order of firstturnover of the assessee — Revision allowed and order of first

Appellate AAppellate AAppellate AAppellate AAppellate Authority restored. uthority restored. uthority restored. uthority restored. uthority restored. [Ratan Chemical industries v. C.T.T.,

U.P., 2010 (49) STJ 193 All. HC]

U.PU.PU.PU.PU.P. T. T. T. T. TRADERADERADERADERADE T T T T TAAAAAX X X X X ACTACTACTACTACT, 1948 — SECTION 12-B — Additional, 1948 — SECTION 12-B — Additional, 1948 — SECTION 12-B — Additional, 1948 — SECTION 12-B — Additional, 1948 — SECTION 12-B — Additional

evidence — Scope — Fevidence — Scope — Fevidence — Scope — Fevidence — Scope — Fevidence — Scope — Form 3-B filed in first appeal and tookorm 3-B filed in first appeal and tookorm 3-B filed in first appeal and tookorm 3-B filed in first appeal and tookorm 3-B filed in first appeal and took

plea in grounds of appeal — Rejected as no application wasplea in grounds of appeal — Rejected as no application wasplea in grounds of appeal — Rejected as no application wasplea in grounds of appeal — Rejected as no application wasplea in grounds of appeal — Rejected as no application was

filed u/s 12-B — Confirmed by Tribunal — Challenged — Heldfiled u/s 12-B — Confirmed by Tribunal — Challenged — Heldfiled u/s 12-B — Confirmed by Tribunal — Challenged — Heldfiled u/s 12-B — Confirmed by Tribunal — Challenged — Heldfiled u/s 12-B — Confirmed by Tribunal — Challenged — Held

that in the ends of justice, assessee is permittee to file appli-that in the ends of justice, assessee is permittee to file appli-that in the ends of justice, assessee is permittee to file appli-that in the ends of justice, assessee is permittee to file appli-that in the ends of justice, assessee is permittee to file appli-

cation u/s 12-B for consideration by first Appellate Authoritycation u/s 12-B for consideration by first Appellate Authoritycation u/s 12-B for consideration by first Appellate Authoritycation u/s 12-B for consideration by first Appellate Authoritycation u/s 12-B for consideration by first Appellate Authority

— Matter remanded — Revision disposed of. — Matter remanded — Revision disposed of. — Matter remanded — Revision disposed of. — Matter remanded — Revision disposed of. — Matter remanded — Revision disposed of. [M/s Shakti Ispat

Pvt. Ltd., Modi Nagar v. C.T.T., U.P., 2010 (49) STJ 194 All. HC]

U.PU.PU.PU.PU.P. T. T. T. T. TRADERADERADERADERADE T T T T TAAAAAX X X X X ACTACTACTACTACT, 1948 — SECTIONS 2(gg), 4-, 1948 — SECTIONS 2(gg), 4-, 1948 — SECTIONS 2(gg), 4-, 1948 — SECTIONS 2(gg), 4-, 1948 — SECTIONS 2(gg), 4-A — Ex-A — Ex-A — Ex-A — Ex-A — Ex-

planation IV — Fixed capital investment — Meaning — Whetherplanation IV — Fixed capital investment — Meaning — Whetherplanation IV — Fixed capital investment — Meaning — Whetherplanation IV — Fixed capital investment — Meaning — Whetherplanation IV — Fixed capital investment — Meaning — Whether

includes purchase price including payment of excise dutyincludes purchase price including payment of excise dutyincludes purchase price including payment of excise dutyincludes purchase price including payment of excise dutyincludes purchase price including payment of excise duty

charged be seller? — Department disallowed allowance oncharged be seller? — Department disallowed allowance oncharged be seller? — Department disallowed allowance oncharged be seller? — Department disallowed allowance oncharged be seller? — Department disallowed allowance on

ground that ‘Modvat’ was allowed on finished goods — Con-ground that ‘Modvat’ was allowed on finished goods — Con-ground that ‘Modvat’ was allowed on finished goods — Con-ground that ‘Modvat’ was allowed on finished goods — Con-ground that ‘Modvat’ was allowed on finished goods — Con-

firmed by Tribunal — Challenged — Plea is that any invest-firmed by Tribunal — Challenged — Plea is that any invest-firmed by Tribunal — Challenged — Plea is that any invest-firmed by Tribunal — Challenged — Plea is that any invest-firmed by Tribunal — Challenged — Plea is that any invest-

ment in plant and machinery includes price paid to seller —ment in plant and machinery includes price paid to seller —ment in plant and machinery includes price paid to seller —ment in plant and machinery includes price paid to seller —ment in plant and machinery includes price paid to seller —

—————

Held plea is tenable — Grant of ‘Modvat’ would not change orHeld plea is tenable — Grant of ‘Modvat’ would not change orHeld plea is tenable — Grant of ‘Modvat’ would not change orHeld plea is tenable — Grant of ‘Modvat’ would not change orHeld plea is tenable — Grant of ‘Modvat’ would not change or

reduce the price paid for the goods purchased such as plantreduce the price paid for the goods purchased such as plantreduce the price paid for the goods purchased such as plantreduce the price paid for the goods purchased such as plantreduce the price paid for the goods purchased such as plant

and machinery and it is to be included in ‘fixed capital invest-and machinery and it is to be included in ‘fixed capital invest-and machinery and it is to be included in ‘fixed capital invest-and machinery and it is to be included in ‘fixed capital invest-and machinery and it is to be included in ‘fixed capital invest-

ment’ — Revision allowed. ment’ — Revision allowed. ment’ — Revision allowed. ment’ — Revision allowed. ment’ — Revision allowed. [M/s Bhushan Steel & Strips Ltd. v. C.T.T.,

U.P., 2010 (49) STJ 195 All. HC]

U.PU.PU.PU.PU.P. T. T. T. T. TRADERADERADERADERADE T T T T TAAAAAX X X X X ACTACTACTACTACT, 1948 — SECTION 21(2) — Reassess-, 1948 — SECTION 21(2) — Reassess-, 1948 — SECTION 21(2) — Reassess-, 1948 — SECTION 21(2) — Reassess-, 1948 — SECTION 21(2) — Reassess-

ment — Sanction by Addl. Commissioner — Scope and jurisdic-ment — Sanction by Addl. Commissioner — Scope and jurisdic-ment — Sanction by Addl. Commissioner — Scope and jurisdic-ment — Sanction by Addl. Commissioner — Scope and jurisdic-ment — Sanction by Addl. Commissioner — Scope and jurisdic-

tion Initially liquid glucose treated as food product and taxedtion Initially liquid glucose treated as food product and taxedtion Initially liquid glucose treated as food product and taxedtion Initially liquid glucose treated as food product and taxedtion Initially liquid glucose treated as food product and taxed

— Later on reassessment initiated on ground that it was un-— Later on reassessment initiated on ground that it was un-— Later on reassessment initiated on ground that it was un-— Later on reassessment initiated on ground that it was un-— Later on reassessment initiated on ground that it was un-

classified — Challenged in writ petition — Held that the proclassified — Challenged in writ petition — Held that the proclassified — Challenged in writ petition — Held that the proclassified — Challenged in writ petition — Held that the proclassified — Challenged in writ petition — Held that the pro-----

ceedings u/s 21(2) is without any material on the basis of whichceedings u/s 21(2) is without any material on the basis of whichceedings u/s 21(2) is without any material on the basis of whichceedings u/s 21(2) is without any material on the basis of whichceedings u/s 21(2) is without any material on the basis of which

belief of escaped assessment could be formed — Order u/sbelief of escaped assessment could be formed — Order u/sbelief of escaped assessment could be formed — Order u/sbelief of escaped assessment could be formed — Order u/sbelief of escaped assessment could be formed — Order u/s

21(2) and consequential notice are quashed — W21(2) and consequential notice are quashed — W21(2) and consequential notice are quashed — W21(2) and consequential notice are quashed — W21(2) and consequential notice are quashed — Writ petitionrit petitionrit petitionrit petitionrit petition

allowed. allowed. allowed. allowed. allowed. [M/s Super Chemicals v. Addl. C. Grade-I, T.T., Agra & Ors.,

2010 (49) STJ 197 All. HC]

U.PU.PU.PU.PU.P. T. T. T. T. TRADERADERADERADERADE T T T T TAAAAAX X X X X ACTACTACTACTACT, 1948 — SECTIONS 21, 3-, 1948 — SECTIONS 21, 3-, 1948 — SECTIONS 21, 3-, 1948 — SECTIONS 21, 3-, 1948 — SECTIONS 21, 3-A — KA — KA — KA — KA — Kachariachariachariachariachari

and ring papad — Initially exempt under Notification Noand ring papad — Initially exempt under Notification Noand ring papad — Initially exempt under Notification Noand ring papad — Initially exempt under Notification Noand ring papad — Initially exempt under Notification No. 1167. 1167. 1167. 1167. 1167

dated 10-04-2000 — Reassessment proceeding started on basisdated 10-04-2000 — Reassessment proceeding started on basisdated 10-04-2000 — Reassessment proceeding started on basisdated 10-04-2000 — Reassessment proceeding started on basisdated 10-04-2000 — Reassessment proceeding started on basis

of subsequent judgment — Confirmed by Tribunal — Challengedof subsequent judgment — Confirmed by Tribunal — Challengedof subsequent judgment — Confirmed by Tribunal — Challengedof subsequent judgment — Confirmed by Tribunal — Challengedof subsequent judgment — Confirmed by Tribunal — Challenged

— Held that there is no escaped turnover and reassessment is— Held that there is no escaped turnover and reassessment is— Held that there is no escaped turnover and reassessment is— Held that there is no escaped turnover and reassessment is— Held that there is no escaped turnover and reassessment is

on change of opinion based on judbment — Section 21 proon change of opinion based on judbment — Section 21 proon change of opinion based on judbment — Section 21 proon change of opinion based on judbment — Section 21 proon change of opinion based on judbment — Section 21 pro-----

ceedings are not justified and set aside — Revision allowed.ceedings are not justified and set aside — Revision allowed.ceedings are not justified and set aside — Revision allowed.ceedings are not justified and set aside — Revision allowed.ceedings are not justified and set aside — Revision allowed.

[M/s Chand Dal Chakki Chatta Bhazzar v. C.C.T., U.P., 2010 (49) STJ 203

All. HC]

U.PU.PU.PU.PU.P. T. T. T. T. TRADERADERADERADERADE T T T T TAAAAAX X X X X ACTACTACTACTACT, 1948 — SECTION 22 — Rectification, 1948 — SECTION 22 — Rectification, 1948 — SECTION 22 — Rectification, 1948 — SECTION 22 — Rectification, 1948 — SECTION 22 — Rectification

of mistake — Scope — Insulating varnish — Tof mistake — Scope — Insulating varnish — Tof mistake — Scope — Insulating varnish — Tof mistake — Scope — Insulating varnish — Tof mistake — Scope — Insulating varnish — Taxed as adhesiveaxed as adhesiveaxed as adhesiveaxed as adhesiveaxed as adhesive

at 10% — Subesequently taxed at 15% as ‘at 10% — Subesequently taxed at 15% as ‘at 10% — Subesequently taxed at 15% as ‘at 10% — Subesequently taxed at 15% as ‘at 10% — Subesequently taxed at 15% as ‘varnish and paints’varnish and paints’varnish and paints’varnish and paints’varnish and paints’

u/s 22 on basis of High Court decision — Confirmed by Tribu-u/s 22 on basis of High Court decision — Confirmed by Tribu-u/s 22 on basis of High Court decision — Confirmed by Tribu-u/s 22 on basis of High Court decision — Confirmed by Tribu-u/s 22 on basis of High Court decision — Confirmed by Tribu-

nal — Challenged — Held that dispute is debatable as to whethernal — Challenged — Held that dispute is debatable as to whethernal — Challenged — Held that dispute is debatable as to whethernal — Challenged — Held that dispute is debatable as to whethernal — Challenged — Held that dispute is debatable as to whether

the item was ‘the item was ‘the item was ‘the item was ‘the item was ‘varnish and paints’ or an ‘adhesive’ hence itvarnish and paints’ or an ‘adhesive’ hence itvarnish and paints’ or an ‘adhesive’ hence itvarnish and paints’ or an ‘adhesive’ hence itvarnish and paints’ or an ‘adhesive’ hence it

cannot be rectified — Revision allowed. cannot be rectified — Revision allowed. cannot be rectified — Revision allowed. cannot be rectified — Revision allowed. cannot be rectified — Revision allowed. [M/s Chandra Electricals

Sales v. C.T.T., U.P., 2010 (49) STJ 205 All. HC]

U.PU.PU.PU.PU.P. T. T. T. T. TRADERADERADERADERADE T T T T TAAAAAX X X X X ACTACTACTACTACT, 1948 — SECTIONS 7(3), 10 — Ac-, 1948 — SECTIONS 7(3), 10 — Ac-, 1948 — SECTIONS 7(3), 10 — Ac-, 1948 — SECTIONS 7(3), 10 — Ac-, 1948 — SECTIONS 7(3), 10 — Ac-

count books produced but on basis of survey estimate of turn-count books produced but on basis of survey estimate of turn-count books produced but on basis of survey estimate of turn-count books produced but on basis of survey estimate of turn-count books produced but on basis of survey estimate of turn-

over was enhanced — Confirmed by Tribunal — Challenged —over was enhanced — Confirmed by Tribunal — Challenged —over was enhanced — Confirmed by Tribunal — Challenged —over was enhanced — Confirmed by Tribunal — Challenged —over was enhanced — Confirmed by Tribunal — Challenged —

Plea is that explanation of assessee regarding survey not con-Plea is that explanation of assessee regarding survey not con-Plea is that explanation of assessee regarding survey not con-Plea is that explanation of assessee regarding survey not con-Plea is that explanation of assessee regarding survey not con-

sidered by Tribunal — Held plea is just — Matter remandedsidered by Tribunal — Held plea is just — Matter remandedsidered by Tribunal — Held plea is just — Matter remandedsidered by Tribunal — Held plea is just — Matter remandedsidered by Tribunal — Held plea is just — Matter remanded

for reconsideration — Revision disposed of.for reconsideration — Revision disposed of.for reconsideration — Revision disposed of.for reconsideration — Revision disposed of.for reconsideration — Revision disposed of.[M/s Satya Narayan

Singh & Co. v. C.T.T., U.P., 2010 (49) STJ 209 All. HC]

U.PU.PU.PU.PU.P. T. T. T. T. TRADERADERADERADERADE T T T T TAAAAAX X X X X ACTACTACTACTACT, 1948 — SECTION 15-, 1948 — SECTION 15-, 1948 — SECTION 15-, 1948 — SECTION 15-, 1948 — SECTION 15-A(1)(o) — GoodsA(1)(o) — GoodsA(1)(o) — GoodsA(1)(o) — GoodsA(1)(o) — Goods

imported with Fimported with Fimported with Fimported with Fimported with Form-35 but without Form-35 but without Form-35 but without Form-35 but without Form-35 but without Form-31 — Seized and se-orm-31 — Seized and se-orm-31 — Seized and se-orm-31 — Seized and se-orm-31 — Seized and se-

curity in cash demanded — Fcurity in cash demanded — Fcurity in cash demanded — Fcurity in cash demanded — Fcurity in cash demanded — Form 31 was filed along with appli-orm 31 was filed along with appli-orm 31 was filed along with appli-orm 31 was filed along with appli-orm 31 was filed along with appli-

cation u/s 13-A(6) — Penalty imposed confirmed by Tribunal —cation u/s 13-A(6) — Penalty imposed confirmed by Tribunal —cation u/s 13-A(6) — Penalty imposed confirmed by Tribunal —cation u/s 13-A(6) — Penalty imposed confirmed by Tribunal —cation u/s 13-A(6) — Penalty imposed confirmed by Tribunal —

Challenged — Plea is that FChallenged — Plea is that FChallenged — Plea is that FChallenged — Plea is that FChallenged — Plea is that Form-31 duty filled by Railway wasorm-31 duty filled by Railway wasorm-31 duty filled by Railway wasorm-31 duty filled by Railway wasorm-31 duty filled by Railway was

soon produced before seizure of goods — Held plea is just andsoon produced before seizure of goods — Held plea is just andsoon produced before seizure of goods — Held plea is just andsoon produced before seizure of goods — Held plea is just andsoon produced before seizure of goods — Held plea is just and

proper — Imposition of penalty is not justified and deleted —proper — Imposition of penalty is not justified and deleted —proper — Imposition of penalty is not justified and deleted —proper — Imposition of penalty is not justified and deleted —proper — Imposition of penalty is not justified and deleted —

Revision allowed. Revision allowed. Revision allowed. Revision allowed. Revision allowed. [I.T.I. Ltd. v. C.T.T., U.P., 2010 (49) STJ 210 All. HC]

U.PU.PU.PU.PU.P. T. T. T. T. TRADERADERADERADERADE T T T T TAAAAAX X X X X ACTACTACTACTACT, 1948 — SECTION 21(2) — P, 1948 — SECTION 21(2) — P, 1948 — SECTION 21(2) — P, 1948 — SECTION 21(2) — P, 1948 — SECTION 21(2) — Paddy sup-addy sup-addy sup-addy sup-addy sup-

plied to Ex-U.Pplied to Ex-U.Pplied to Ex-U.Pplied to Ex-U.Pplied to Ex-U.P. P. P. P. P. Principal — Initially exemption was granted onrincipal — Initially exemption was granted onrincipal — Initially exemption was granted onrincipal — Initially exemption was granted onrincipal — Initially exemption was granted on

basis of Fbasis of Fbasis of Fbasis of Fbasis of Form-H u/s 5(3) of CST Act — Reassessment proceed-orm-H u/s 5(3) of CST Act — Reassessment proceed-orm-H u/s 5(3) of CST Act — Reassessment proceed-orm-H u/s 5(3) of CST Act — Reassessment proceed-orm-H u/s 5(3) of CST Act — Reassessment proceed-

ing started to levy tax on the basis of decision in case of Mongaing started to levy tax on the basis of decision in case of Mongaing started to levy tax on the basis of decision in case of Mongaing started to levy tax on the basis of decision in case of Mongaing started to levy tax on the basis of decision in case of Monga

Rice Mill — Challenged — Held exemption was granted on ba-Rice Mill — Challenged — Held exemption was granted on ba-Rice Mill — Challenged — Held exemption was granted on ba-Rice Mill — Challenged — Held exemption was granted on ba-Rice Mill — Challenged — Held exemption was granted on ba-

sis of Fsis of Fsis of Fsis of Fsis of Form-H and not on ground that it was interorm-H and not on ground that it was interorm-H and not on ground that it was interorm-H and not on ground that it was interorm-H and not on ground that it was inter-State pur-State pur-State pur-State pur-State pur-----

chases — Reassessment proceedings held legal and valid —chases — Reassessment proceedings held legal and valid —chases — Reassessment proceedings held legal and valid —chases — Reassessment proceedings held legal and valid —chases — Reassessment proceedings held legal and valid —

WWWWWrit petition dismissed. rit petition dismissed. rit petition dismissed. rit petition dismissed. rit petition dismissed. [M/s Raini Traders v. State of U.P. & Ors.,

2010 (49) STJ 212 All. HC]

U.PU.PU.PU.PU.P. V. V. V. V. VALALALALALUE ADDED TUE ADDED TUE ADDED TUE ADDED TUE ADDED TAAAAAXXXXX ACTACTACTACTACT, 2008 — SECTIONS 25(3), 33(7), 2008 — SECTIONS 25(3), 33(7), 2008 — SECTIONS 25(3), 33(7), 2008 — SECTIONS 25(3), 33(7), 2008 — SECTIONS 25(3), 33(7)

— Provisional assessment order served on 16-01-10 but recov-— Provisional assessment order served on 16-01-10 but recov-— Provisional assessment order served on 16-01-10 but recov-— Provisional assessment order served on 16-01-10 but recov-— Provisional assessment order served on 16-01-10 but recov-

ery notice issued earlier on 12-01-10 and account of the peti-ery notice issued earlier on 12-01-10 and account of the peti-ery notice issued earlier on 12-01-10 and account of the peti-ery notice issued earlier on 12-01-10 and account of the peti-ery notice issued earlier on 12-01-10 and account of the peti-

tioner attached — Challenged in writ petition — Held recoverytioner attached — Challenged in writ petition — Held recoverytioner attached — Challenged in writ petition — Held recoverytioner attached — Challenged in writ petition — Held recoverytioner attached — Challenged in writ petition — Held recovery

notice prior service of assessment order is illegal and arbitrarynotice prior service of assessment order is illegal and arbitrarynotice prior service of assessment order is illegal and arbitrarynotice prior service of assessment order is illegal and arbitrarynotice prior service of assessment order is illegal and arbitrary

causing harassment and loss — Exemplary cost of Rs. 25,000/-causing harassment and loss — Exemplary cost of Rs. 25,000/-causing harassment and loss — Exemplary cost of Rs. 25,000/-causing harassment and loss — Exemplary cost of Rs. 25,000/-causing harassment and loss — Exemplary cost of Rs. 25,000/-

imposed on Deputy Commissionerimposed on Deputy Commissionerimposed on Deputy Commissionerimposed on Deputy Commissionerimposed on Deputy Commissioner, Etah — W, Etah — W, Etah — W, Etah — W, Etah — Writ petition al-rit petition al-rit petition al-rit petition al-rit petition al-

lowed. lowed. lowed. lowed. lowed. [M/s Vinayak Traders, Etah v. State of U.P. & Ors., 2010 (49)

STJ 216 All. HC]

U.PU.PU.PU.PU.P. T. T. T. T. TRADERADERADERADERADE T T T T TAAAAAX X X X X ACTACTACTACTACT, 1948 — SECTION 21(2) — RULE 44(b), 1948 — SECTION 21(2) — RULE 44(b), 1948 — SECTION 21(2) — RULE 44(b), 1948 — SECTION 21(2) — RULE 44(b), 1948 — SECTION 21(2) — RULE 44(b)

— Manufacture and sale of tyres and tubes — Return of used— Manufacture and sale of tyres and tubes — Return of used— Manufacture and sale of tyres and tubes — Return of used— Manufacture and sale of tyres and tubes — Return of used— Manufacture and sale of tyres and tubes — Return of used

tyres during warranty period and loss claim allowed in assess-tyres during warranty period and loss claim allowed in assess-tyres during warranty period and loss claim allowed in assess-tyres during warranty period and loss claim allowed in assess-tyres during warranty period and loss claim allowed in assess-

ment proceedings — Subesquently reassessment proceedingment proceedings — Subesquently reassessment proceedingment proceedings — Subesquently reassessment proceedingment proceedings — Subesquently reassessment proceedingment proceedings — Subesquently reassessment proceeding

initiated on ground that claim was wrongly allowed on theinitiated on ground that claim was wrongly allowed on theinitiated on ground that claim was wrongly allowed on theinitiated on ground that claim was wrongly allowed on theinitiated on ground that claim was wrongly allowed on the

ground that goods were not returned — Challenged — Plea isground that goods were not returned — Challenged — Plea isground that goods were not returned — Challenged — Plea isground that goods were not returned — Challenged — Plea isground that goods were not returned — Challenged — Plea is

that it was not a case of return of goods and claim was consid-that it was not a case of return of goods and claim was consid-that it was not a case of return of goods and claim was consid-that it was not a case of return of goods and claim was consid-that it was not a case of return of goods and claim was consid-

ered on material — Additional Commissioner has wrongly ap-ered on material — Additional Commissioner has wrongly ap-ered on material — Additional Commissioner has wrongly ap-ered on material — Additional Commissioner has wrongly ap-ered on material — Additional Commissioner has wrongly ap-

plied Rule 44(b) — Order u/s 21(2) and consequential noticeplied Rule 44(b) — Order u/s 21(2) and consequential noticeplied Rule 44(b) — Order u/s 21(2) and consequential noticeplied Rule 44(b) — Order u/s 21(2) and consequential noticeplied Rule 44(b) — Order u/s 21(2) and consequential notice

are quashed — Ware quashed — Ware quashed — Ware quashed — Ware quashed — Writ petition allowed. rit petition allowed. rit petition allowed. rit petition allowed. rit petition allowed. [M/s Apollo Tyres Ltd., Meerut

v. State of U.P. & Ors., 2010 (49) STJ 217 All. HC]

U.PU.PU.PU.PU.P. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE TAAAAAX ACTX ACTX ACTX ACTX ACT, 1948 — SECTION 12 — Books of ac-, 1948 — SECTION 12 — Books of ac-, 1948 — SECTION 12 — Books of ac-, 1948 — SECTION 12 — Books of ac-, 1948 — SECTION 12 — Books of ac-

counts rejected due to adverse material — Tribunal affirmedcounts rejected due to adverse material — Tribunal affirmedcounts rejected due to adverse material — Tribunal affirmedcounts rejected due to adverse material — Tribunal affirmedcounts rejected due to adverse material — Tribunal affirmed

rejection — Question of estimation of turnover was raised inrejection — Question of estimation of turnover was raised inrejection — Question of estimation of turnover was raised inrejection — Question of estimation of turnover was raised inrejection — Question of estimation of turnover was raised in

revision — Revision dismissed as no error noticed in order ofrevision — Revision dismissed as no error noticed in order ofrevision — Revision dismissed as no error noticed in order ofrevision — Revision dismissed as no error noticed in order ofrevision — Revision dismissed as no error noticed in order of

Tribunal — No question of law as well.Tribunal — No question of law as well.Tribunal — No question of law as well.Tribunal — No question of law as well.Tribunal — No question of law as well.

vf/kdj.k us ys[kkiqLrdsa fujLr fd;s tkus dh iqf’V dh & fjohtu esa fu.kZ; fn;k fd

vf/kdj.k ds fu.kZ; esa dksbZ xyrh ugha o u gh dksbZ fof/k&fcUnq le{k gS & fjohtu fujLrA[C.T.T., U.P. v. Kanak Food Pvt. Ltd., 2010 (49) STJ 282 All. HC]

U.PU.PU.PU.PU.P. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE TAAAAAX ACTX ACTX ACTX ACTX ACT, 1948 — SECTION 4-8 — T, 1948 — SECTION 4-8 — T, 1948 — SECTION 4-8 — T, 1948 — SECTION 4-8 — T, 1948 — SECTION 4-8 — Tribunal heldribunal heldribunal heldribunal heldribunal held

that there is no illegality in use of diesel in production of noti-that there is no illegality in use of diesel in production of noti-that there is no illegality in use of diesel in production of noti-that there is no illegality in use of diesel in production of noti-that there is no illegality in use of diesel in production of noti-

fied goods: yarn — After getting recognition certificate dealerfied goods: yarn — After getting recognition certificate dealerfied goods: yarn — After getting recognition certificate dealerfied goods: yarn — After getting recognition certificate dealerfied goods: yarn — After getting recognition certificate dealer

becomes entitled to purchase the same — Held in revision: nobecomes entitled to purchase the same — Held in revision: nobecomes entitled to purchase the same — Held in revision: nobecomes entitled to purchase the same — Held in revision: nobecomes entitled to purchase the same — Held in revision: no

error in order of Tribunal and no question of law arises —error in order of Tribunal and no question of law arises —error in order of Tribunal and no question of law arises —error in order of Tribunal and no question of law arises —error in order of Tribunal and no question of law arises —

Revision dismissed.Revision dismissed.Revision dismissed.Revision dismissed.Revision dismissed.

vf/kdj.k us fu.kZ; fn;k fd vf/klwfpr eky mRiknu esa Mhty dk iz;ksx djuk

voS/kkfud ugha & vgZrk dk izek.ki= ysus ij Mhyj bls [kjhnus dk gdnkj & vf/kdj.k

ds fu.kZ; esa dksbZ xyrh ugha u gh dksbZ fof/kd fcUnq njis”k gS & fjohtu fujLrA [C.T.T.,

U.P. v. Mamb Threads Pvt. Ltd., 2010 (49) STJ 283 All. HC]

U.PU.PU.PU.PU.P. T. T. T. T. TRADERADERADERADERADE T T T T TAAAAAX X X X X ACTACTACTACTACT, 1948 — SECTIONS 3-, 1948 — SECTIONS 3-, 1948 — SECTIONS 3-, 1948 — SECTIONS 3-, 1948 — SECTIONS 3-AAAAA, 21(2) — ‘, 21(2) — ‘, 21(2) — ‘, 21(2) — ‘, 21(2) — ‘AnAnAnAnAn-----

hydrous ammonia’ in liquid form — Meaning and taxability —hydrous ammonia’ in liquid form — Meaning and taxability —hydrous ammonia’ in liquid form — Meaning and taxability —hydrous ammonia’ in liquid form — Meaning and taxability —hydrous ammonia’ in liquid form — Meaning and taxability —

Initially taxed as chemical at 10% and not as gas taxable atInitially taxed as chemical at 10% and not as gas taxable atInitially taxed as chemical at 10% and not as gas taxable atInitially taxed as chemical at 10% and not as gas taxable atInitially taxed as chemical at 10% and not as gas taxable at

12% — Reassessment proceedings started — Challenged in writ12% — Reassessment proceedings started — Challenged in writ12% — Reassessment proceedings started — Challenged in writ12% — Reassessment proceedings started — Challenged in writ12% — Reassessment proceedings started — Challenged in writ

petition — Plea is that it assessing authority treated it as chemi-petition — Plea is that it assessing authority treated it as chemi-petition — Plea is that it assessing authority treated it as chemi-petition — Plea is that it assessing authority treated it as chemi-petition — Plea is that it assessing authority treated it as chemi-

cal and cannot change its opinion — held plea is just and leagalcal and cannot change its opinion — held plea is just and leagalcal and cannot change its opinion — held plea is just and leagalcal and cannot change its opinion — held plea is just and leagalcal and cannot change its opinion — held plea is just and leagal

— commodity is chemical and taxed as such — Subsequent— commodity is chemical and taxed as such — Subsequent— commodity is chemical and taxed as such — Subsequent— commodity is chemical and taxed as such — Subsequent— commodity is chemical and taxed as such — Subsequent

change of opinion is not permissible — Sanction order as wellchange of opinion is not permissible — Sanction order as wellchange of opinion is not permissible — Sanction order as wellchange of opinion is not permissible — Sanction order as wellchange of opinion is not permissible — Sanction order as well

as notice for reassessment quashed — Was notice for reassessment quashed — Was notice for reassessment quashed — Was notice for reassessment quashed — Was notice for reassessment quashed — Writ petition allowed.rit petition allowed.rit petition allowed.rit petition allowed.rit petition allowed.

[Ammonia Supply Company v. Addl. c. grade-I, I.T.I., U.P., 2010 (49) STJ

284 All. HC]

U.PU.PU.PU.PU.P. T. T. T. T. TRADERADERADERADERADE T T T T TAAAAAX X X X X ACTACTACTACTACT, 1948 — SECTIONS 8(1), 8(1-B), 21 —, 1948 — SECTIONS 8(1), 8(1-B), 21 —, 1948 — SECTIONS 8(1), 8(1-B), 21 —, 1948 — SECTIONS 8(1), 8(1-B), 21 —, 1948 — SECTIONS 8(1), 8(1-B), 21 —

Payment of interest — Claim of petitioner on amount receivedPayment of interest — Claim of petitioner on amount receivedPayment of interest — Claim of petitioner on amount receivedPayment of interest — Claim of petitioner on amount receivedPayment of interest — Claim of petitioner on amount received

from campany in respect of warranty claim was accepted infrom campany in respect of warranty claim was accepted infrom campany in respect of warranty claim was accepted infrom campany in respect of warranty claim was accepted infrom campany in respect of warranty claim was accepted in

original assessment orders for A.ys. 1990-2000 to 2002-03 —original assessment orders for A.ys. 1990-2000 to 2002-03 —original assessment orders for A.ys. 1990-2000 to 2002-03 —original assessment orders for A.ys. 1990-2000 to 2002-03 —original assessment orders for A.ys. 1990-2000 to 2002-03 —

Thereafter on basis of Supreme Court Judgment in case of Mohd.Thereafter on basis of Supreme Court Judgment in case of Mohd.Thereafter on basis of Supreme Court Judgment in case of Mohd.Thereafter on basis of Supreme Court Judgment in case of Mohd.Thereafter on basis of Supreme Court Judgment in case of Mohd.

Ekram Khan, tax assessed by reassessment and interest alsoEkram Khan, tax assessed by reassessment and interest alsoEkram Khan, tax assessed by reassessment and interest alsoEkram Khan, tax assessed by reassessment and interest alsoEkram Khan, tax assessed by reassessment and interest also

levied treating as admitted tax — Flevied treating as admitted tax — Flevied treating as admitted tax — Flevied treating as admitted tax — Flevied treating as admitted tax — For the Aor the Aor the Aor the Aor the A.Y.Y.Y.Y.Y. 2003-04 tax lev-. 2003-04 tax lev-. 2003-04 tax lev-. 2003-04 tax lev-. 2003-04 tax lev-

ied in original assessment with interest — Challenged in writied in original assessment with interest — Challenged in writied in original assessment with interest — Challenged in writied in original assessment with interest — Challenged in writied in original assessment with interest — Challenged in writ

petition — Held tax assessed on the warranty claim amount bypetition — Held tax assessed on the warranty claim amount bypetition — Held tax assessed on the warranty claim amount bypetition — Held tax assessed on the warranty claim amount bypetition — Held tax assessed on the warranty claim amount by

reassessment cannot be said to be admitted tax hence not li-reassessment cannot be said to be admitted tax hence not li-reassessment cannot be said to be admitted tax hence not li-reassessment cannot be said to be admitted tax hence not li-reassessment cannot be said to be admitted tax hence not li-

able to pay interest u/s 8(1) but for the Aable to pay interest u/s 8(1) but for the Aable to pay interest u/s 8(1) but for the Aable to pay interest u/s 8(1) but for the Aable to pay interest u/s 8(1) but for the A.Y.Y.Y.Y.Y. 2003-04 interest is. 2003-04 interest is. 2003-04 interest is. 2003-04 interest is. 2003-04 interest is

chargeble after judgmnet of High Court. chargeble after judgmnet of High Court. chargeble after judgmnet of High Court. chargeble after judgmnet of High Court. chargeble after judgmnet of High Court. [Bansal Motors v. State of

U.P. & Ors., 2010 (49) STJ 289 All. HC]

U.PU.PU.PU.PU.P. T. T. T. T. TRADERADERADERADERADE T T T T TAAAAAX X X X X ACTACTACTACTACT, 1948 — SECTION 29(2) — Claim for, 1948 — SECTION 29(2) — Claim for, 1948 — SECTION 29(2) — Claim for, 1948 — SECTION 29(2) — Claim for, 1948 — SECTION 29(2) — Claim for

refund deposited in excess of tax dues — Rejected due to nonrefund deposited in excess of tax dues — Rejected due to nonrefund deposited in excess of tax dues — Rejected due to nonrefund deposited in excess of tax dues — Rejected due to nonrefund deposited in excess of tax dues — Rejected due to non

furnishing of samvidhi praman patra in Ffurnishing of samvidhi praman patra in Ffurnishing of samvidhi praman patra in Ffurnishing of samvidhi praman patra in Ffurnishing of samvidhi praman patra in Form-76 — Challengedorm-76 — Challengedorm-76 — Challengedorm-76 — Challengedorm-76 — Challenged

— Plea is that certificate is not necessary or provided in any— Plea is that certificate is not necessary or provided in any— Plea is that certificate is not necessary or provided in any— Plea is that certificate is not necessary or provided in any— Plea is that certificate is not necessary or provided in any

provision — Held plea is just and proper — Direction to amountprovision — Held plea is just and proper — Direction to amountprovision — Held plea is just and proper — Direction to amountprovision — Held plea is just and proper — Direction to amountprovision — Held plea is just and proper — Direction to amount

with interest and Rs. 10,000/- cost imposed on department —with interest and Rs. 10,000/- cost imposed on department —with interest and Rs. 10,000/- cost imposed on department —with interest and Rs. 10,000/- cost imposed on department —with interest and Rs. 10,000/- cost imposed on department —

WWWWWrit petition allowed. rit petition allowed. rit petition allowed. rit petition allowed. rit petition allowed. [Chob Singh Company, Agra v. State of U.P.

and Ors., 2010 (49) STJ 291 All. HC]

U.PU.PU.PU.PU.P. T. T. T. T. TRADERADERADERADERADE T T T T TAAAAAX X X X X ACTACTACTACTACT, 1948 — SECTION 29(2) — Claim for, 1948 — SECTION 29(2) — Claim for, 1948 — SECTION 29(2) — Claim for, 1948 — SECTION 29(2) — Claim for, 1948 — SECTION 29(2) — Claim for

refund of amount found due after the order of first appellaterefund of amount found due after the order of first appellaterefund of amount found due after the order of first appellaterefund of amount found due after the order of first appellaterefund of amount found due after the order of first appellate

authority — Denied on ground that no apllication was made forauthority — Denied on ground that no apllication was made forauthority — Denied on ground that no apllication was made forauthority — Denied on ground that no apllication was made forauthority — Denied on ground that no apllication was made for

refund — Challenged — Held refund amount is payable withinrefund — Challenged — Held refund amount is payable withinrefund — Challenged — Held refund amount is payable withinrefund — Challenged — Held refund amount is payable withinrefund — Challenged — Held refund amount is payable within

3 months after passing of the order and thereafter interest is3 months after passing of the order and thereafter interest is3 months after passing of the order and thereafter interest is3 months after passing of the order and thereafter interest is3 months after passing of the order and thereafter interest is

also payable — Any application for the refund is not necessaryalso payable — Any application for the refund is not necessaryalso payable — Any application for the refund is not necessaryalso payable — Any application for the refund is not necessaryalso payable — Any application for the refund is not necessary

— W— W— W— W— Writ petition allowed. rit petition allowed. rit petition allowed. rit petition allowed. rit petition allowed. [Rai Coke Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of

U.P. & Ors., 2010 (49) STJ 293 All. HC]

U.PU.PU.PU.PU.P. T. T. T. T. TRADERADERADERADERADE T T T T TAAAAAX X X X X ACTACTACTACTACT, 1948 — SECTIONS 13-, 1948 — SECTIONS 13-, 1948 — SECTIONS 13-, 1948 — SECTIONS 13-, 1948 — SECTIONS 13-A(4), 29(2) —A(4), 29(2) —A(4), 29(2) —A(4), 29(2) —A(4), 29(2) —

Goods seized and security deposited by driver of vehicleGoods seized and security deposited by driver of vehicleGoods seized and security deposited by driver of vehicleGoods seized and security deposited by driver of vehicleGoods seized and security deposited by driver of vehicle

through transporter petitioner — Security amount convertedthrough transporter petitioner — Security amount convertedthrough transporter petitioner — Security amount convertedthrough transporter petitioner — Security amount convertedthrough transporter petitioner — Security amount converted

into penalty which was deleted in first appeal with direction tointo penalty which was deleted in first appeal with direction tointo penalty which was deleted in first appeal with direction tointo penalty which was deleted in first appeal with direction tointo penalty which was deleted in first appeal with direction to

refund — Refund denied on ground that it was payable to otherrefund — Refund denied on ground that it was payable to otherrefund — Refund denied on ground that it was payable to otherrefund — Refund denied on ground that it was payable to otherrefund — Refund denied on ground that it was payable to other

transport company — Challenged — Held denial of refund andtransport company — Challenged — Held denial of refund andtransport company — Challenged — Held denial of refund andtransport company — Challenged — Held denial of refund andtransport company — Challenged — Held denial of refund and

withholding the same is totally arbitrary hence petitioner iswithholding the same is totally arbitrary hence petitioner iswithholding the same is totally arbitrary hence petitioner iswithholding the same is totally arbitrary hence petitioner iswithholding the same is totally arbitrary hence petitioner is

entitled for refund with interest — Direction to refund amountentitled for refund with interest — Direction to refund amountentitled for refund with interest — Direction to refund amountentitled for refund with interest — Direction to refund amountentitled for refund with interest — Direction to refund amount

with interest and Rs. 10,000/- cost imposed on department —with interest and Rs. 10,000/- cost imposed on department —with interest and Rs. 10,000/- cost imposed on department —with interest and Rs. 10,000/- cost imposed on department —with interest and Rs. 10,000/- cost imposed on department —

WWWWWrit petition allowed. rit petition allowed. rit petition allowed. rit petition allowed. rit petition allowed. [Shree Azad Transport Co. Ltd. co. G.Z.B. v.


U.PU.PU.PU.PU.P. T. T. T. T. TRADERADERADERADERADE T T T T TAAAAAX X X X X ACTACTACTACTACT, 1948 — SECTION 21 — Reassess-, 1948 — SECTION 21 — Reassess-, 1948 — SECTION 21 — Reassess-, 1948 — SECTION 21 — Reassess-, 1948 — SECTION 21 — Reassess-

ment — Manufacture of liquor in U.Pment — Manufacture of liquor in U.Pment — Manufacture of liquor in U.Pment — Manufacture of liquor in U.Pment — Manufacture of liquor in U.P. with depots in other States. with depots in other States. with depots in other States. with depots in other States. with depots in other States

— Claim of stock transfer — On remand assessing authority— Claim of stock transfer — On remand assessing authority— Claim of stock transfer — On remand assessing authority— Claim of stock transfer — On remand assessing authority— Claim of stock transfer — On remand assessing authority

examined Fexamined Fexamined Fexamined Fexamined Form-F — Meanwhile notice for reassesment isssuedorm-F — Meanwhile notice for reassesment isssuedorm-F — Meanwhile notice for reassesment isssuedorm-F — Meanwhile notice for reassesment isssuedorm-F — Meanwhile notice for reassesment isssued

— F— F— F— F— Form-F found correct — Torm-F found correct — Torm-F found correct — Torm-F found correct — Torm-F found correct — Tribunal confirmed reassessmentribunal confirmed reassessmentribunal confirmed reassessmentribunal confirmed reassessmentribunal confirmed reassessment

proceeding — Challenged — Plea is that reassessment is ille-proceeding — Challenged — Plea is that reassessment is ille-proceeding — Challenged — Plea is that reassessment is ille-proceeding — Challenged — Plea is that reassessment is ille-proceeding — Challenged — Plea is that reassessment is ille-

gal during pendency of original assessment proceedings — Heldgal during pendency of original assessment proceedings — Heldgal during pendency of original assessment proceedings — Heldgal during pendency of original assessment proceedings — Heldgal during pendency of original assessment proceedings — Held

plea is just and legal — During pendency of original assess-plea is just and legal — During pendency of original assess-plea is just and legal — During pendency of original assess-plea is just and legal — During pendency of original assess-plea is just and legal — During pendency of original assess-

ment it coild not be said that any turnover had escaped assess-ment it coild not be said that any turnover had escaped assess-ment it coild not be said that any turnover had escaped assess-ment it coild not be said that any turnover had escaped assess-ment it coild not be said that any turnover had escaped assess-

ment — Revision allowed. ment — Revision allowed. ment — Revision allowed. ment — Revision allowed. ment — Revision allowed. [Seagram Manufacturing (P) Ltd. v. C.C.T.,

U.P., 2010 (49) STJ 297 All. HC]

U.PU.PU.PU.PU.P. T. T. T. T. TRADERADERADERADERADE T T T T TAAAAAX X X X X ACTACTACTACTACT, 1948 — SECTION 21 — Electrical, 1948 — SECTION 21 — Electrical, 1948 — SECTION 21 — Electrical, 1948 — SECTION 21 — Electrical, 1948 — SECTION 21 — Electrical

goods — Agoods — Agoods — Agoods — Agoods — A.Y.Y.Y.Y.Y. 1997-98 reopened on basis of material relating to. 1997-98 reopened on basis of material relating to. 1997-98 reopened on basis of material relating to. 1997-98 reopened on basis of material relating to. 1997-98 reopened on basis of material relating to

AAAAA.Y.Y.Y.Y.Y. 1998-99 — Initially assessing authority exempted local. 1998-99 — Initially assessing authority exempted local. 1998-99 — Initially assessing authority exempted local. 1998-99 — Initially assessing authority exempted local. 1998-99 — Initially assessing authority exempted local

purchases from registerd dealers — Reasessment proceedingspurchases from registerd dealers — Reasessment proceedingspurchases from registerd dealers — Reasessment proceedingspurchases from registerd dealers — Reasessment proceedingspurchases from registerd dealers — Reasessment proceedings

for earlier year challenged — Plea is that material rellating tofor earlier year challenged — Plea is that material rellating tofor earlier year challenged — Plea is that material rellating tofor earlier year challenged — Plea is that material rellating tofor earlier year challenged — Plea is that material rellating to

subsequent year cannot be basis to reopen case for previoussubsequent year cannot be basis to reopen case for previoussubsequent year cannot be basis to reopen case for previoussubsequent year cannot be basis to reopen case for previoussubsequent year cannot be basis to reopen case for previous

year — Held plea is tenable — There must be some materialyear — Held plea is tenable — There must be some materialyear — Held plea is tenable — There must be some materialyear — Held plea is tenable — There must be some materialyear — Held plea is tenable — There must be some material

relating to the year under consideration — Proceedings forrelating to the year under consideration — Proceedings forrelating to the year under consideration — Proceedings forrelating to the year under consideration — Proceedings forrelating to the year under consideration — Proceedings for

reassessment quashed — Wreassessment quashed — Wreassessment quashed — Wreassessment quashed — Wreassessment quashed — Writ petition allowed. rit petition allowed. rit petition allowed. rit petition allowed. rit petition allowed. [Siddhartha En-

terprises v. State of U.P. & Ors., 2010 (49) STJ 301 All. HC]

U.PU.PU.PU.PU.P. T. T. T. T. TRADERADERADERADERADE T T T T TAAAAAX X X X X ACTACTACTACTACT, 1948 — SECTION 3-, 1948 — SECTION 3-, 1948 — SECTION 3-, 1948 — SECTION 3-, 1948 — SECTION 3-A — Gulab JamunA — Gulab JamunA — Gulab JamunA — Gulab JamunA — Gulab Jamun

mix — Meaning and taxability — Tribunal treated it is milkmix — Meaning and taxability — Tribunal treated it is milkmix — Meaning and taxability — Tribunal treated it is milkmix — Meaning and taxability — Tribunal treated it is milkmix — Meaning and taxability — Tribunal treated it is milk

powder under Notification nopowder under Notification nopowder under Notification nopowder under Notification nopowder under Notification no. 101 dated 15-01-2000 — Chal-. 101 dated 15-01-2000 — Chal-. 101 dated 15-01-2000 — Chal-. 101 dated 15-01-2000 — Chal-. 101 dated 15-01-2000 — Chal-

lenged by department — Held that the item is not covered inlenged by department — Held that the item is not covered inlenged by department — Held that the item is not covered inlenged by department — Held that the item is not covered inlenged by department — Held that the item is not covered in

Entry of milk powder of the said notification — Gulab JamunEntry of milk powder of the said notification — Gulab JamunEntry of milk powder of the said notification — Gulab JamunEntry of milk powder of the said notification — Gulab JamunEntry of milk powder of the said notification — Gulab Jamun

mix is a preserved food stuff — View of Tribunal is wrong andmix is a preserved food stuff — View of Tribunal is wrong andmix is a preserved food stuff — View of Tribunal is wrong andmix is a preserved food stuff — View of Tribunal is wrong andmix is a preserved food stuff — View of Tribunal is wrong and

set aside — Revision of department allowed. set aside — Revision of department allowed. set aside — Revision of department allowed. set aside — Revision of department allowed. set aside — Revision of department allowed. [C.T.T., U.P. v. Ashoka

Foods & Dehydrased (P.) Ltd., 2010 (49) STJ 303 All. HC]

U.PU.PU.PU.PU.P. T. T. T. T. TRADERADERADERADERADE T T T T TAAAAAX X X X X ACTACTACTACTACT, 1948 — SECTIONS 10, 8(1) — Second, 1948 — SECTIONS 10, 8(1) — Second, 1948 — SECTIONS 10, 8(1) — Second, 1948 — SECTIONS 10, 8(1) — Second, 1948 — SECTIONS 10, 8(1) — Second

appeal — Fappeal — Fappeal — Fappeal — Fappeal — Form 3-B filed and accepted by Torm 3-B filed and accepted by Torm 3-B filed and accepted by Torm 3-B filed and accepted by Torm 3-B filed and accepted by Tribunal — Chal-ribunal — Chal-ribunal — Chal-ribunal — Chal-ribunal — Chal-

lenged by department — Held Tribunal gave reason to acceptlenged by department — Held Tribunal gave reason to acceptlenged by department — Held Tribunal gave reason to acceptlenged by department — Held Tribunal gave reason to acceptlenged by department — Held Tribunal gave reason to accept

FFFFForm 3-B and hence cannot be interfered with — Form 3-B and hence cannot be interfered with — Form 3-B and hence cannot be interfered with — Form 3-B and hence cannot be interfered with — Form 3-B and hence cannot be interfered with — Further heldurther heldurther heldurther heldurther held

that interest is not leviable as tax was challenged through outthat interest is not leviable as tax was challenged through outthat interest is not leviable as tax was challenged through outthat interest is not leviable as tax was challenged through outthat interest is not leviable as tax was challenged through out

— Revision of department dismissed. — Revision of department dismissed. — Revision of department dismissed. — Revision of department dismissed. — Revision of department dismissed. [C.T.T., U.P. v. Monate in-

dustries Ltd. Muzaffarnagar, 2010 (49) STJ 304 All. HC]

U.PU.PU.PU.PU.P. T. T. T. T. TRADERADERADERADERADE T T T T TAAAAAX X X X X ACTACTACTACTACT, 1948 — SECTIONS 3-B, 21(2) — T, 1948 — SECTIONS 3-B, 21(2) — T, 1948 — SECTIONS 3-B, 21(2) — T, 1948 — SECTIONS 3-B, 21(2) — T, 1948 — SECTIONS 3-B, 21(2) — Tri-ri-ri-ri-ri-

bunal held taht proceedings u/s 3-B were barred by limitationbunal held taht proceedings u/s 3-B were barred by limitationbunal held taht proceedings u/s 3-B were barred by limitationbunal held taht proceedings u/s 3-B were barred by limitationbunal held taht proceedings u/s 3-B were barred by limitation

u/s 21(2) — Challenged by department in revision — Plea isu/s 21(2) — Challenged by department in revision — Plea isu/s 21(2) — Challenged by department in revision — Plea isu/s 21(2) — Challenged by department in revision — Plea isu/s 21(2) — Challenged by department in revision — Plea is

that Tribunal relied on a decision of 1993 which was overruledthat Tribunal relied on a decision of 1993 which was overruledthat Tribunal relied on a decision of 1993 which was overruledthat Tribunal relied on a decision of 1993 which was overruledthat Tribunal relied on a decision of 1993 which was overruled

by subsequent Division Bench decision in 1995 — Held plea ofby subsequent Division Bench decision in 1995 — Held plea ofby subsequent Division Bench decision in 1995 — Held plea ofby subsequent Division Bench decision in 1995 — Held plea ofby subsequent Division Bench decision in 1995 — Held plea of

department is just — Proceedings u/s 3-B are not assessmentdepartment is just — Proceedings u/s 3-B are not assessmentdepartment is just — Proceedings u/s 3-B are not assessmentdepartment is just — Proceedings u/s 3-B are not assessmentdepartment is just — Proceedings u/s 3-B are not assessment

hence limitation u/s 21 (2) is not applicable — Revision of de-hence limitation u/s 21 (2) is not applicable — Revision of de-hence limitation u/s 21 (2) is not applicable — Revision of de-hence limitation u/s 21 (2) is not applicable — Revision of de-hence limitation u/s 21 (2) is not applicable — Revision of de-

partment allowed. partment allowed. partment allowed. partment allowed. partment allowed. [C.T.T., U.P. v. Royal Box Industries, Kanpur, 2010

(49) STJ 305 All. HC]

U.PU.PU.PU.PU.P. T. T. T. T. TRADERADERADERADERADE T T T T TAAAAAX X X X X ACTACTACTACTACT, 1948 — SECTION 13-, 1948 — SECTION 13-, 1948 — SECTION 13-, 1948 — SECTION 13-, 1948 — SECTION 13-A(4) — PA(4) — PA(4) — PA(4) — PA(4) — Penaltyenaltyenaltyenaltyenalty

imposed on assessee who is a transporter — Confirmed byimposed on assessee who is a transporter — Confirmed byimposed on assessee who is a transporter — Confirmed byimposed on assessee who is a transporter — Confirmed byimposed on assessee who is a transporter — Confirmed by

Tribunal — Challenged — Plea is that wrappers used in seizedTribunal — Challenged — Plea is that wrappers used in seizedTribunal — Challenged — Plea is that wrappers used in seizedTribunal — Challenged — Plea is that wrappers used in seizedTribunal — Challenged — Plea is that wrappers used in seized

goods displayed names of registered dealer and also excisegoods displayed names of registered dealer and also excisegoods displayed names of registered dealer and also excisegoods displayed names of registered dealer and also excisegoods displayed names of registered dealer and also excise

number —Held plea is just — Goods did not belong to the trans-number —Held plea is just — Goods did not belong to the trans-number —Held plea is just — Goods did not belong to the trans-number —Held plea is just — Goods did not belong to the trans-number —Held plea is just — Goods did not belong to the trans-

port company — penalty is not justified and deleted — Revi-port company — penalty is not justified and deleted — Revi-port company — penalty is not justified and deleted — Revi-port company — penalty is not justified and deleted — Revi-port company — penalty is not justified and deleted — Revi-

sion allowed. sion allowed. sion allowed. sion allowed. sion allowed. [New Varanasi Transport Corporation, Agra v. C.T.T.,

U.P., 2010 (49) STJ 306 All. HC]

U.PU.PU.PU.PU.P. V. V. V. V. VALALALALALUE ADDED TUE ADDED TUE ADDED TUE ADDED TUE ADDED TAAAAAX X X X X ACTACTACTACTACT, 2008 — SECTION 42(4) —, 2008 — SECTION 42(4) —, 2008 — SECTION 42(4) —, 2008 — SECTION 42(4) —, 2008 — SECTION 42(4) —

Refund — Order was passed for refund and adjustment wasRefund — Order was passed for refund and adjustment wasRefund — Order was passed for refund and adjustment wasRefund — Order was passed for refund and adjustment wasRefund — Order was passed for refund and adjustment was

made on the same date without hearing of petitioner assesseemade on the same date without hearing of petitioner assesseemade on the same date without hearing of petitioner assesseemade on the same date without hearing of petitioner assesseemade on the same date without hearing of petitioner assessee

— Challenged — Held opportunity of hearing to assessee is— Challenged — Held opportunity of hearing to assessee is— Challenged — Held opportunity of hearing to assessee is— Challenged — Held opportunity of hearing to assessee is— Challenged — Held opportunity of hearing to assessee is

necessary before passing any order of adjustment — order ofnecessary before passing any order of adjustment — order ofnecessary before passing any order of adjustment — order ofnecessary before passing any order of adjustment — order ofnecessary before passing any order of adjustment — order of

adjustment passed by authorities are set asid — Wadjustment passed by authorities are set asid — Wadjustment passed by authorities are set asid — Wadjustment passed by authorities are set asid — Wadjustment passed by authorities are set asid — Writ allowed.rit allowed.rit allowed.rit allowed.rit allowed.

[Jubilant Organosys Lts. v. State of U.P. & Ors., 2010 (49) STJ 307 All.

HC]

U.PU.PU.PU.PU.P. T. T. T. T. TRADERADERADERADERADE T T T T TAAAAAX X X X X ACTACTACTACTACT, 1948 — SECTION 2(ee) — Manufac-, 1948 — SECTION 2(ee) — Manufac-, 1948 — SECTION 2(ee) — Manufac-, 1948 — SECTION 2(ee) — Manufac-, 1948 — SECTION 2(ee) — Manufac-

ture — Meaning — Assessee works as commission agent for ature — Meaning — Assessee works as commission agent for ature — Meaning — Assessee works as commission agent for ature — Meaning — Assessee works as commission agent for ature — Meaning — Assessee works as commission agent for a

new unit which was exempt u/s 4-A of the Act — Plea of asses-new unit which was exempt u/s 4-A of the Act — Plea of asses-new unit which was exempt u/s 4-A of the Act — Plea of asses-new unit which was exempt u/s 4-A of the Act — Plea of asses-new unit which was exempt u/s 4-A of the Act — Plea of asses-

see is that he was manufacture and not liable to pay tax —see is that he was manufacture and not liable to pay tax —see is that he was manufacture and not liable to pay tax —see is that he was manufacture and not liable to pay tax —see is that he was manufacture and not liable to pay tax —

Held plea is just — Commissioner agent cannot be treated asHeld plea is just — Commissioner agent cannot be treated asHeld plea is just — Commissioner agent cannot be treated asHeld plea is just — Commissioner agent cannot be treated asHeld plea is just — Commissioner agent cannot be treated as

manufacture and is not liable to tax — Revision allowed. manufacture and is not liable to tax — Revision allowed. manufacture and is not liable to tax — Revision allowed. manufacture and is not liable to tax — Revision allowed. manufacture and is not liable to tax — Revision allowed. [J.

Prasad v. C.I.T., 2010 (49) STJ 308 All. HC]

U.PU.PU.PU.PU.P. T. T. T. T. TRADERADERADERADERADE T T T T TAAAAAX X X X X ACTACTACTACTACT, 1948 — SECTION 7(3) — Enhance-, 1948 — SECTION 7(3) — Enhance-, 1948 — SECTION 7(3) — Enhance-, 1948 — SECTION 7(3) — Enhance-, 1948 — SECTION 7(3) — Enhance-

ment in turnover made due to escapement of turnover od aboutment in turnover made due to escapement of turnover od aboutment in turnover made due to escapement of turnover od aboutment in turnover made due to escapement of turnover od aboutment in turnover made due to escapement of turnover od about

14 lacs in absence of F14 lacs in absence of F14 lacs in absence of F14 lacs in absence of F14 lacs in absence of Form-3D — Confirmed by Torm-3D — Confirmed by Torm-3D — Confirmed by Torm-3D — Confirmed by Torm-3D — Confirmed by Tribunal —ribunal —ribunal —ribunal —ribunal —

Challenged — Plea is that assessee is government departmentChallenged — Plea is that assessee is government departmentChallenged — Plea is that assessee is government departmentChallenged — Plea is that assessee is government departmentChallenged — Plea is that assessee is government department

and enhancement reduced to extent of escaped amount of 14and enhancement reduced to extent of escaped amount of 14and enhancement reduced to extent of escaped amount of 14and enhancement reduced to extent of escaped amount of 14and enhancement reduced to extent of escaped amount of 14

lacs — Revision partly allowed. lacs — Revision partly allowed. lacs — Revision partly allowed. lacs — Revision partly allowed. lacs — Revision partly allowed. [Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. C.T.T.,

U.P., 2010 (49) STJ 309 All. HC]

U.PU.PU.PU.PU.P. T. T. T. T. TRADERADERADERADERADE T T T T TAAAAAX X X X X ACTACTACTACTACT, 1948 — SECTION 10 — Second ap-, 1948 — SECTION 10 — Second ap-, 1948 — SECTION 10 — Second ap-, 1948 — SECTION 10 — Second ap-, 1948 — SECTION 10 — Second ap-

peal — Remand by Tribunal — Question was whether transac-peal — Remand by Tribunal — Question was whether transac-peal — Remand by Tribunal — Question was whether transac-peal — Remand by Tribunal — Question was whether transac-peal — Remand by Tribunal — Question was whether transac-

tion in question was stock transfer or sale — Tribunal did nottion in question was stock transfer or sale — Tribunal did nottion in question was stock transfer or sale — Tribunal did nottion in question was stock transfer or sale — Tribunal did nottion in question was stock transfer or sale — Tribunal did not

consider evidence on record — Challenged — Held matter re-consider evidence on record — Challenged — Held matter re-consider evidence on record — Challenged — Held matter re-consider evidence on record — Challenged — Held matter re-consider evidence on record — Challenged — Held matter re-

quires reconsideration and matter remanded to the Tribunal —quires reconsideration and matter remanded to the Tribunal —quires reconsideration and matter remanded to the Tribunal —quires reconsideration and matter remanded to the Tribunal —quires reconsideration and matter remanded to the Tribunal —

Revision disposed of. Revision disposed of. Revision disposed of. Revision disposed of. Revision disposed of. [Cadbury India Ltd. v. C.T.T., U.P., 2010 (49)

STJ 311 All. HC]

U.PU.PU.PU.PU.P. T. T. T. T. TRADERADERADERADERADE T T T T TAAAAAX X X X X ACTACTACTACTACT, 1948 — SECTION 10 — Remand or, 1948 — SECTION 10 — Remand or, 1948 — SECTION 10 — Remand or, 1948 — SECTION 10 — Remand or, 1948 — SECTION 10 — Remand or-----

der — First appellate authority held that notice under Sectionder — First appellate authority held that notice under Sectionder — First appellate authority held that notice under Sectionder — First appellate authority held that notice under Sectionder — First appellate authority held that notice under Section

21 was illegal for central transaction — Tribunal remanded21 was illegal for central transaction — Tribunal remanded21 was illegal for central transaction — Tribunal remanded21 was illegal for central transaction — Tribunal remanded21 was illegal for central transaction — Tribunal remanded

matter to reconsider — Challenged by assessee — Held re-matter to reconsider — Challenged by assessee — Held re-matter to reconsider — Challenged by assessee — Held re-matter to reconsider — Challenged by assessee — Held re-matter to reconsider — Challenged by assessee — Held re-

mand order is illegal — Order in first appeal is legal and up-mand order is illegal — Order in first appeal is legal and up-mand order is illegal — Order in first appeal is legal and up-mand order is illegal — Order in first appeal is legal and up-mand order is illegal — Order in first appeal is legal and up-

held — Revision allowed. held — Revision allowed. held — Revision allowed. held — Revision allowed. held — Revision allowed. [U.P. State Sugar Corporations Ltd. v. T.T.T.,

Meerut, 2010 (49) STJ 312 All. HC]

U.PU.PU.PU.PU.P. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE TAAAAAX ACTX ACTX ACTX ACTX ACT, 1948 — SECTIONS 12, 13A(4) — T, 1948 — SECTIONS 12, 13A(4) — T, 1948 — SECTIONS 12, 13A(4) — T, 1948 — SECTIONS 12, 13A(4) — T, 1948 — SECTIONS 12, 13A(4) — Tri-ri-ri-ri-ri-

bunal found manupulation in the bill and on account of mul-bunal found manupulation in the bill and on account of mul-bunal found manupulation in the bill and on account of mul-bunal found manupulation in the bill and on account of mul-bunal found manupulation in the bill and on account of mul-

tiple handwriting it created that it was used again and again —tiple handwriting it created that it was used again and again —tiple handwriting it created that it was used again and again —tiple handwriting it created that it was used again and again —tiple handwriting it created that it was used again and again —

Held in revision that there is no need to go into the details ofHeld in revision that there is no need to go into the details ofHeld in revision that there is no need to go into the details ofHeld in revision that there is no need to go into the details ofHeld in revision that there is no need to go into the details of

finding of Tribunal as it is factual and no question of law arisesfinding of Tribunal as it is factual and no question of law arisesfinding of Tribunal as it is factual and no question of law arisesfinding of Tribunal as it is factual and no question of law arisesfinding of Tribunal as it is factual and no question of law arises

— Revision dismissed.— Revision dismissed.— Revision dismissed.— Revision dismissed.— Revision dismissed.

vf/kdj.k us fcy esa gsjh&Qsjh ik;h] ftlls fcy ds ckj&ckj iz;qDr gksuk izrhr gqvk

& fjohtu esa fu.kZ; fn;k fd vf/kdj.k ds fu’d’kZ dh ckjhdh esa] tkus dh vko”;drk ugha]

d;ksafd og (Sic) gS o dksbZ fof/kd iz”u Hkh njis”k ugha & fjohtu fujLrA [Baghwat

Prasad Prakash Chandra v. C.T.T., U.P., 2010 (49) STJ 313 All. HC]

U.PU.PU.PU.PU.P. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE TAAAAAX ACTX ACTX ACTX ACTX ACT, 1948 — SECTION 3-, 1948 — SECTION 3-, 1948 — SECTION 3-, 1948 — SECTION 3-, 1948 — SECTION 3-G — U.PG — U.PG — U.PG — U.PG — U.P. State. State. State. State. State

Bridge Corporation engaged in the business of constructionBridge Corporation engaged in the business of constructionBridge Corporation engaged in the business of constructionBridge Corporation engaged in the business of constructionBridge Corporation engaged in the business of construction

work, imported certain goods against form 3D for constructionwork, imported certain goods against form 3D for constructionwork, imported certain goods against form 3D for constructionwork, imported certain goods against form 3D for constructionwork, imported certain goods against form 3D for construction

use, but it sold out — Department found it to be the violation ofuse, but it sold out — Department found it to be the violation ofuse, but it sold out — Department found it to be the violation ofuse, but it sold out — Department found it to be the violation ofuse, but it sold out — Department found it to be the violation of

section 3G — imposed certain Tsection 3G — imposed certain Tsection 3G — imposed certain Tsection 3G — imposed certain Tsection 3G — imposed certain Tax — Held: the corporation is aax — Held: the corporation is aax — Held: the corporation is aax — Held: the corporation is aax — Held: the corporation is a

limb of Government, it would be appropriate that matter shouldlimb of Government, it would be appropriate that matter shouldlimb of Government, it would be appropriate that matter shouldlimb of Government, it would be appropriate that matter shouldlimb of Government, it would be appropriate that matter should

be referred to High Power Committee as observed by the Apexbe referred to High Power Committee as observed by the Apexbe referred to High Power Committee as observed by the Apexbe referred to High Power Committee as observed by the Apexbe referred to High Power Committee as observed by the Apex

Court — The committee will resolve the issue at its level —Court — The committee will resolve the issue at its level —Court — The committee will resolve the issue at its level —Court — The committee will resolve the issue at its level —Court — The committee will resolve the issue at its level —

Revision disposed accordinglyRevision disposed accordinglyRevision disposed accordinglyRevision disposed accordinglyRevision disposed accordingly.....

;w0 ih0 fczt dkiksZjs”ku us vk;kfrr eky dks fuekZ.k dk;Z esa iz;ksx djus ds ctk; mls

csp fn;k & foHkkx us bls /kkjk&3th dk mYya?ku ekurs gq, dqN dj vjksfir fd;k & fu.kZ;

% ekeyk gkbZ ikoj dfeVh dks izfrizsf’kr fd;k tkrk gS] ogh bldk lek/kku djs] D;ksafd

dkWiksZjs”ku ljdkj dk ,d vax gS & fjohtu rnuqlkj fuLrkfjrA [Dy. Project Manager

v. C.T.T., U.P., 2010 (49) STJ 319 All. HC]

U.PU.PU.PU.PU.P. V. V. V. V. VALALALALALUE ADDED TUE ADDED TUE ADDED TUE ADDED TUE ADDED TAAAAAX ACTX ACTX ACTX ACTX ACT, 2008 — SECTION 48(7) —, 2008 — SECTION 48(7) —, 2008 — SECTION 48(7) —, 2008 — SECTION 48(7) —, 2008 — SECTION 48(7) —

Seizure of goods on the ground that against show cause notice,Seizure of goods on the ground that against show cause notice,Seizure of goods on the ground that against show cause notice,Seizure of goods on the ground that against show cause notice,Seizure of goods on the ground that against show cause notice,

no production of books of accounts for verification — Demandno production of books of accounts for verification — Demandno production of books of accounts for verification — Demandno production of books of accounts for verification — Demandno production of books of accounts for verification — Demand

of cash security to the extent of three times of the tax — Held:of cash security to the extent of three times of the tax — Held:of cash security to the extent of three times of the tax — Held:of cash security to the extent of three times of the tax — Held:of cash security to the extent of three times of the tax — Held:

demand of security appears to be excessive, it should be twodemand of security appears to be excessive, it should be twodemand of security appears to be excessive, it should be twodemand of security appears to be excessive, it should be twodemand of security appears to be excessive, it should be two

times to the tax — Goods be released forthwith furnishing oftimes to the tax — Goods be released forthwith furnishing oftimes to the tax — Goods be released forthwith furnishing oftimes to the tax — Goods be released forthwith furnishing oftimes to the tax — Goods be released forthwith furnishing of

security — Revision allowed in part.security — Revision allowed in part.security — Revision allowed in part.security — Revision allowed in part.security — Revision allowed in part.

eky dks bl vk/kkj ij jksdk fd dkj.k crkvksa uksfVl ds izfr ys[kk iqLrdksa dks lR;kiu

gsrq ugha fn[kk;k x;k & dj dh ns;rk ds rhu xq.kk ds cjkcj izfrHkwfr Hkjus dh ekax & fu.kZ;

% rhu xq.kk izfrHkwfr dh ekax vf/kd] ;g nks xq.kk jguh pkfg, & izfrHkwfr nsus ij eky “kh?kz

NksM+ fn;k tk;s & fjohtu vkaf”kd :i ls LohdkjA [Utsav Oil Traders v. C.C.T.,

U.P., 2010 (49) STJ 325 All. HC]

U.PU.PU.PU.PU.P. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE TAAAAAX ACTX ACTX ACTX ACTX ACT, 1948 — SECTION 3-, 1948 — SECTION 3-, 1948 — SECTION 3-, 1948 — SECTION 3-, 1948 — SECTION 3-A — Iron andA — Iron andA — Iron andA — Iron andA — Iron and

Steel — TSteel — TSteel — TSteel — TSteel — Taxability — Notification Noaxability — Notification Noaxability — Notification Noaxability — Notification Noaxability — Notification No. 1626 dated 21-05-94, En. 1626 dated 21-05-94, En. 1626 dated 21-05-94, En. 1626 dated 21-05-94, En. 1626 dated 21-05-94, En-----

try 6(a) and 6(b) interpreted — Dispute relates to Atry 6(a) and 6(b) interpreted — Dispute relates to Atry 6(a) and 6(b) interpreted — Dispute relates to Atry 6(a) and 6(b) interpreted — Dispute relates to Atry 6(a) and 6(b) interpreted — Dispute relates to A.Y.Y.Y.Y.Y. 1998-99. 1998-99. 1998-99. 1998-99. 1998-99

— Entry 6(b) challenged as ultra vires and also the assessment— Entry 6(b) challenged as ultra vires and also the assessment— Entry 6(b) challenged as ultra vires and also the assessment— Entry 6(b) challenged as ultra vires and also the assessment— Entry 6(b) challenged as ultra vires and also the assessment

orderorderorderorderorder, levying higher rate of tax at 4% on iron and steel im-, levying higher rate of tax at 4% on iron and steel im-, levying higher rate of tax at 4% on iron and steel im-, levying higher rate of tax at 4% on iron and steel im-, levying higher rate of tax at 4% on iron and steel im-

ported as discriminatory — Held Entry 6(b) of the Notificationported as discriminatory — Held Entry 6(b) of the Notificationported as discriminatory — Held Entry 6(b) of the Notificationported as discriminatory — Held Entry 6(b) of the Notificationported as discriminatory — Held Entry 6(b) of the Notification

is violative of Articles 301 to 304 — All iron and steel taxable atis violative of Articles 301 to 304 — All iron and steel taxable atis violative of Articles 301 to 304 — All iron and steel taxable atis violative of Articles 301 to 304 — All iron and steel taxable atis violative of Articles 301 to 304 — All iron and steel taxable at

the rate 2% as per Entry 6(a) on principle of euality — Fthe rate 2% as per Entry 6(a) on principle of euality — Fthe rate 2% as per Entry 6(a) on principle of euality — Fthe rate 2% as per Entry 6(a) on principle of euality — Fthe rate 2% as per Entry 6(a) on principle of euality — Furtherurtherurtherurtherurther

held that the assessing authority may examine the claim ofheld that the assessing authority may examine the claim ofheld that the assessing authority may examine the claim ofheld that the assessing authority may examine the claim ofheld that the assessing authority may examine the claim of

refund u/s 29 and 29-refund u/s 29 and 29-refund u/s 29 and 29-refund u/s 29 and 29-refund u/s 29 and 29-A of the Act — WA of the Act — WA of the Act — WA of the Act — WA of the Act — Writ petition allowed.rit petition allowed.rit petition allowed.rit petition allowed.rit petition allowed.

[Mittal Metals & Anr, G.Z.B. v. State of U.P. & Anr., 2010 (49) STJ 327

All. HC]

U.PU.PU.PU.PU.P. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE TAAAAAX ACTX ACTX ACTX ACTX ACT, 1948 — SECTION 3-, 1948 — SECTION 3-, 1948 — SECTION 3-, 1948 — SECTION 3-, 1948 — SECTION 3-AB — MeaningAB — MeaningAB — MeaningAB — MeaningAB — Meaning

and interpretation — Country liquor sold with packing mate-and interpretation — Country liquor sold with packing mate-and interpretation — Country liquor sold with packing mate-and interpretation — Country liquor sold with packing mate-and interpretation — Country liquor sold with packing mate-

rial separately charged in bill — Trial separately charged in bill — Trial separately charged in bill — Trial separately charged in bill — Trial separately charged in bill — Tax levied on packing mate-ax levied on packing mate-ax levied on packing mate-ax levied on packing mate-ax levied on packing mate-

rial — Challenged — Held, where packing material separatelyrial — Challenged — Held, where packing material separatelyrial — Challenged — Held, where packing material separatelyrial — Challenged — Held, where packing material separatelyrial — Challenged — Held, where packing material separately

charged, Section 3-charged, Section 3-charged, Section 3-charged, Section 3-charged, Section 3-AB does not apply — VAB does not apply — VAB does not apply — VAB does not apply — VAB does not apply — Value of packing ma-alue of packing ma-alue of packing ma-alue of packing ma-alue of packing ma-

terial is not exempt — Wterial is not exempt — Wterial is not exempt — Wterial is not exempt — Wterial is not exempt — Writ petition dismissed.rit petition dismissed.rit petition dismissed.rit petition dismissed.rit petition dismissed. [Modi Industries

Ltd. v. State of U.P. & Ors., 2010 (49) STJ 333 All. HC]

U.PU.PU.PU.PU.P. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE TAAAAAX ACTX ACTX ACTX ACTX ACT, 1948 — SECTIONS 3-, 1948 — SECTIONS 3-, 1948 — SECTIONS 3-, 1948 — SECTIONS 3-, 1948 — SECTIONS 3-AAAAA, 21 — Dish, 21 — Dish, 21 — Dish, 21 — Dish, 21 — Dish

Antena and Satellite Receiver — Meaning and distinction —Antena and Satellite Receiver — Meaning and distinction —Antena and Satellite Receiver — Meaning and distinction —Antena and Satellite Receiver — Meaning and distinction —Antena and Satellite Receiver — Meaning and distinction —

Whether it is same as ‘Satellite ReceiverWhether it is same as ‘Satellite ReceiverWhether it is same as ‘Satellite ReceiverWhether it is same as ‘Satellite ReceiverWhether it is same as ‘Satellite Receiver ’ — T’ — T’ — T’ — T’ — Tribunal held thatribunal held thatribunal held thatribunal held thatribunal held that

both are same commodity — Section 21 proceedings for reas-both are same commodity — Section 21 proceedings for reas-both are same commodity — Section 21 proceedings for reas-both are same commodity — Section 21 proceedings for reas-both are same commodity — Section 21 proceedings for reas-

sessment also started — Challenged — Held there is no freshsessment also started — Challenged — Held there is no freshsessment also started — Challenged — Held there is no freshsessment also started — Challenged — Held there is no freshsessment also started — Challenged — Held there is no fresh

material to initiate reassessment — Fmaterial to initiate reassessment — Fmaterial to initiate reassessment — Fmaterial to initiate reassessment — Fmaterial to initiate reassessment — Further held that ‘Dishurther held that ‘Dishurther held that ‘Dishurther held that ‘Dishurther held that ‘Dish

Antenna’ is not the same as the ‘Satellite ReceiverAntenna’ is not the same as the ‘Satellite ReceiverAntenna’ is not the same as the ‘Satellite ReceiverAntenna’ is not the same as the ‘Satellite ReceiverAntenna’ is not the same as the ‘Satellite Receiver ’ rather both’ rather both’ rather both’ rather both’ rather both

are different — View of Tribunal is not correct and set aside —are different — View of Tribunal is not correct and set aside —are different — View of Tribunal is not correct and set aside —are different — View of Tribunal is not correct and set aside —are different — View of Tribunal is not correct and set aside —

Revision allowed.Revision allowed.Revision allowed.Revision allowed.Revision allowed. [S.V.H. Tech Pvt. Ltd., Modinagar v. C.T.T., U.P., 2010

(49) STJ 335 All. HC]

U.PU.PU.PU.PU.P. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE TAAAAAX ACTX ACTX ACTX ACTX ACT, 1948 — SECTION 21(2) — Reassess-, 1948 — SECTION 21(2) — Reassess-, 1948 — SECTION 21(2) — Reassess-, 1948 — SECTION 21(2) — Reassess-, 1948 — SECTION 21(2) — Reassess-

ment — Purchase of paddy by assessee supplied to mill own-ment — Purchase of paddy by assessee supplied to mill own-ment — Purchase of paddy by assessee supplied to mill own-ment — Purchase of paddy by assessee supplied to mill own-ment — Purchase of paddy by assessee supplied to mill own-

ers for processing under the terms of agreement, rice bran,ers for processing under the terms of agreement, rice bran,ers for processing under the terms of agreement, rice bran,ers for processing under the terms of agreement, rice bran,ers for processing under the terms of agreement, rice bran,

rice polish and kinkee to be retained by the millers — Trice polish and kinkee to be retained by the millers — Trice polish and kinkee to be retained by the millers — Trice polish and kinkee to be retained by the millers — Trice polish and kinkee to be retained by the millers — Tax paidax paidax paidax paidax paid

on purchase of paddy affirmed in assessment — Reassessmenton purchase of paddy affirmed in assessment — Reassessmenton purchase of paddy affirmed in assessment — Reassessmenton purchase of paddy affirmed in assessment — Reassessmenton purchase of paddy affirmed in assessment — Reassessment

proceedings started to tax residue of paddy — Challenged inproceedings started to tax residue of paddy — Challenged inproceedings started to tax residue of paddy — Challenged inproceedings started to tax residue of paddy — Challenged inproceedings started to tax residue of paddy — Challenged in

rit petition — Plea is that commodities were not taken back byrit petition — Plea is that commodities were not taken back byrit petition — Plea is that commodities were not taken back byrit petition — Plea is that commodities were not taken back byrit petition — Plea is that commodities were not taken back by

the petitioner from the millers and thi aspect of the matter wasthe petitioner from the millers and thi aspect of the matter wasthe petitioner from the millers and thi aspect of the matter wasthe petitioner from the millers and thi aspect of the matter wasthe petitioner from the millers and thi aspect of the matter was

considered in original assessment — Held plea is just — Addi-considered in original assessment — Held plea is just — Addi-considered in original assessment — Held plea is just — Addi-considered in original assessment — Held plea is just — Addi-considered in original assessment — Held plea is just — Addi-

tional Commissioner must give reasons and record satisfactiontional Commissioner must give reasons and record satisfactiontional Commissioner must give reasons and record satisfactiontional Commissioner must give reasons and record satisfactiontional Commissioner must give reasons and record satisfaction

about escapement of tax or turnover — Reassessment proceed-about escapement of tax or turnover — Reassessment proceed-about escapement of tax or turnover — Reassessment proceed-about escapement of tax or turnover — Reassessment proceed-about escapement of tax or turnover — Reassessment proceed-

ings quashed — Wings quashed — Wings quashed — Wings quashed — Wings quashed — Writ petition allowed.rit petition allowed.rit petition allowed.rit petition allowed.rit petition allowed. [U.P. Cooperative Federa-

tion Ltd. v. State of U.P. & Ors., 2010 (49) STJ 337 All. HC]

U.PU.PU.PU.PU.P. V. V. V. V. VALALALALALUE ADDED TUE ADDED TUE ADDED TUE ADDED TUE ADDED TAAAAAX TX TX TX TX TAAAAAX ACTX ACTX ACTX ACTX ACT, 2008 — SECTION 4(1) —, 2008 — SECTION 4(1) —, 2008 — SECTION 4(1) —, 2008 — SECTION 4(1) —, 2008 — SECTION 4(1) —

‘Frozen Dessert’ — Meaning and taxability — Tribunal held it‘Frozen Dessert’ — Meaning and taxability — Tribunal held it‘Frozen Dessert’ — Meaning and taxability — Tribunal held it‘Frozen Dessert’ — Meaning and taxability — Tribunal held it‘Frozen Dessert’ — Meaning and taxability — Tribunal held it

as unclasified item taxable @ 12.5% and not as milk productas unclasified item taxable @ 12.5% and not as milk productas unclasified item taxable @ 12.5% and not as milk productas unclasified item taxable @ 12.5% and not as milk productas unclasified item taxable @ 12.5% and not as milk product

taxable @ 4% — Challenged — Held matter needs reconsidera-taxable @ 4% — Challenged — Held matter needs reconsidera-taxable @ 4% — Challenged — Held matter needs reconsidera-taxable @ 4% — Challenged — Held matter needs reconsidera-taxable @ 4% — Challenged — Held matter needs reconsidera-

tion by the Tribunal whether milk solid non-fat used in prod-tion by the Tribunal whether milk solid non-fat used in prod-tion by the Tribunal whether milk solid non-fat used in prod-tion by the Tribunal whether milk solid non-fat used in prod-tion by the Tribunal whether milk solid non-fat used in prod-

uct is originally made from the natural milk or not — Fuct is originally made from the natural milk or not — Fuct is originally made from the natural milk or not — Fuct is originally made from the natural milk or not — Fuct is originally made from the natural milk or not — Furtherurtherurtherurtherurther

held that till the decidion of Tribunal, assessee shall continueheld that till the decidion of Tribunal, assessee shall continueheld that till the decidion of Tribunal, assessee shall continueheld that till the decidion of Tribunal, assessee shall continueheld that till the decidion of Tribunal, assessee shall continue

to pay taxes at the rate of 4% — Revision disposed of. to pay taxes at the rate of 4% — Revision disposed of. to pay taxes at the rate of 4% — Revision disposed of. to pay taxes at the rate of 4% — Revision disposed of. to pay taxes at the rate of 4% — Revision disposed of. [Vadilal

Industries Ltd. v. C.C.T., U.P., 2010 (49) STJ 343 All. HC]

U.PU.PU.PU.PU.P. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE TAAAAAX ACTX ACTX ACTX ACTX ACT, 1948 — SECTION 3-, 1948 — SECTION 3-, 1948 — SECTION 3-, 1948 — SECTION 3-, 1948 — SECTION 3-A — AluminiumA — AluminiumA — AluminiumA — AluminiumA — Aluminium

properzi rods — Meaning and taxability — Whether metal tax-properzi rods — Meaning and taxability — Whether metal tax-properzi rods — Meaning and taxability — Whether metal tax-properzi rods — Meaning and taxability — Whether metal tax-properzi rods — Meaning and taxability — Whether metal tax-

able at 2% or unclassified item — Tribunal held it as metal inable at 2% or unclassified item — Tribunal held it as metal inable at 2% or unclassified item — Tribunal held it as metal inable at 2% or unclassified item — Tribunal held it as metal inable at 2% or unclassified item — Tribunal held it as metal in

favour of the assessee — Challenged by revenue — Honfavour of the assessee — Challenged by revenue — Honfavour of the assessee — Challenged by revenue — Honfavour of the assessee — Challenged by revenue — Honfavour of the assessee — Challenged by revenue — Hon’ble’ble’ble’ble’ble

High Court held it as unclassified item against the assessee —High Court held it as unclassified item against the assessee —High Court held it as unclassified item against the assessee —High Court held it as unclassified item against the assessee —High Court held it as unclassified item against the assessee —

Challenged by assessee in appeal before Supreme Court —Challenged by assessee in appeal before Supreme Court —Challenged by assessee in appeal before Supreme Court —Challenged by assessee in appeal before Supreme Court —Challenged by assessee in appeal before Supreme Court —

Held item as primary metal — Judgment of High Court re-Held item as primary metal — Judgment of High Court re-Held item as primary metal — Judgment of High Court re-Held item as primary metal — Judgment of High Court re-Held item as primary metal — Judgment of High Court re-

versed and order of Tribunal confirmed — Appeal allowed byversed and order of Tribunal confirmed — Appeal allowed byversed and order of Tribunal confirmed — Appeal allowed byversed and order of Tribunal confirmed — Appeal allowed byversed and order of Tribunal confirmed — Appeal allowed by

Supreme Court.Supreme Court.Supreme Court.Supreme Court.Supreme Court. [Jai Vijai Metal Udyaog Pvt. Ltd. v. C.T.T., U.P., 2010

(49) STJ 344 All. HC]

U.PU.PU.PU.PU.P. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE TAAAAAX ACTX ACTX ACTX ACTX ACT, 1948 — SECTION 3-, 1948 — SECTION 3-, 1948 — SECTION 3-, 1948 — SECTION 3-, 1948 — SECTION 3-A — ‘A — ‘A — ‘A — ‘A — ‘Ammonia’—Ammonia’—Ammonia’—Ammonia’—Ammonia’—

Meaning and taxability — Whether chemical or gas? — Tribu-Meaning and taxability — Whether chemical or gas? — Tribu-Meaning and taxability — Whether chemical or gas? — Tribu-Meaning and taxability — Whether chemical or gas? — Tribu-Meaning and taxability — Whether chemical or gas? — Tribu-

nal held it as gas and not chemical — Challenged — Held thatnal held it as gas and not chemical — Challenged — Held thatnal held it as gas and not chemical — Challenged — Held thatnal held it as gas and not chemical — Challenged — Held thatnal held it as gas and not chemical — Challenged — Held that

‘ammonia’ is chemical not a gas and is to be taxed fixed for‘ammonia’ is chemical not a gas and is to be taxed fixed for‘ammonia’ is chemical not a gas and is to be taxed fixed for‘ammonia’ is chemical not a gas and is to be taxed fixed for‘ammonia’ is chemical not a gas and is to be taxed fixed for

chemical, relying on a division Bench decision in the case ofchemical, relying on a division Bench decision in the case ofchemical, relying on a division Bench decision in the case ofchemical, relying on a division Bench decision in the case ofchemical, relying on a division Bench decision in the case of

assessee itself — Revision allowed. assessee itself — Revision allowed. assessee itself — Revision allowed. assessee itself — Revision allowed. assessee itself — Revision allowed. [Ammonia Supply Co. v. C.T.T.,

U.P., 2010 (49) STJ 349 All. HC]

U.PU.PU.PU.PU.P. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE TAAAAAX ACTX ACTX ACTX ACTX ACT, 1948 — SECTIONS 4B(2), 4(ii) —, 1948 — SECTIONS 4B(2), 4(ii) —, 1948 — SECTIONS 4B(2), 4(ii) —, 1948 — SECTIONS 4B(2), 4(ii) —, 1948 — SECTIONS 4B(2), 4(ii) —

CENTRAL SALES TCENTRAL SALES TCENTRAL SALES TCENTRAL SALES TCENTRAL SALES TAAAAAX ACTX ACTX ACTX ACTX ACT, 1956 — SECTION 7 — Notice for, 1956 — SECTION 7 — Notice for, 1956 — SECTION 7 — Notice for, 1956 — SECTION 7 — Notice for, 1956 — SECTION 7 — Notice for

deletion of High Speed diesel, as an item mentioned in thedeletion of High Speed diesel, as an item mentioned in thedeletion of High Speed diesel, as an item mentioned in thedeletion of High Speed diesel, as an item mentioned in thedeletion of High Speed diesel, as an item mentioned in the

recognition certificate — Challenge in High Court — Notice setrecognition certificate — Challenge in High Court — Notice setrecognition certificate — Challenge in High Court — Notice setrecognition certificate — Challenge in High Court — Notice setrecognition certificate — Challenge in High Court — Notice set

aside — Appeal before Supreme Court — Held: the assessingaside — Appeal before Supreme Court — Held: the assessingaside — Appeal before Supreme Court — Held: the assessingaside — Appeal before Supreme Court — Held: the assessingaside — Appeal before Supreme Court — Held: the assessing

authority to decide each case on merits uninpluenced by theauthority to decide each case on merits uninpluenced by theauthority to decide each case on merits uninpluenced by theauthority to decide each case on merits uninpluenced by theauthority to decide each case on merits uninpluenced by the

decision of High Court, giving hearing to assessee — Orderdecision of High Court, giving hearing to assessee — Orderdecision of High Court, giving hearing to assessee — Orderdecision of High Court, giving hearing to assessee — Orderdecision of High Court, giving hearing to assessee — Order

amending the recognition certificate would operate from dateamending the recognition certificate would operate from dateamending the recognition certificate would operate from dateamending the recognition certificate would operate from dateamending the recognition certificate would operate from date

of issuance of show-cause notice — Appeals disposed of ac-of issuance of show-cause notice — Appeals disposed of ac-of issuance of show-cause notice — Appeals disposed of ac-of issuance of show-cause notice — Appeals disposed of ac-of issuance of show-cause notice — Appeals disposed of ac-

cordinglycordinglycordinglycordinglycordingly.....

fjdksxuh”ku lVhZfQdsV esa mfYyf[kr gkbZ LihM Mhty dks gVkus ;k lekIr djus ds

fy, foHkkx }kjk uksfVl tkjh & mPp U;k;ky; esa pqukSrh & mPp U;k;ky; }kjk uksfVl

jn~n & mPpre U;k;ky; ds le{k vihy & fu.kZ;% fu/kkZj.k izkf/kdkjh ,slSlh dks volj

iznku djrs gq,] mPp U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; ls vizHkkfor jgrs gq, izR;sd ekeys dks xq.knks’k

ds vk/kkj ij fu.khZr djs & fjdksxuh”ku lVhZfQdsV esa la”kks/ku dkj.k&crkvksa uksfVl ds

tkjh djus dh frfFk ls ykxw gksxk & rnuqlkj vihysa fuLrkfjrA [State of U.P. & Ors.

v. Vam Organic Chemicals Ltd., 2010 (49) STJ 370 All. HC]

U.PU.PU.PU.PU.P. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE TAAAAAX ACTX ACTX ACTX ACTX ACT, 1948 — SECTION 21 — Business of, 1948 — SECTION 21 — Business of, 1948 — SECTION 21 — Business of, 1948 — SECTION 21 — Business of, 1948 — SECTION 21 — Business of

manufacture and sale of foreign liquor — Notification datedmanufacture and sale of foreign liquor — Notification datedmanufacture and sale of foreign liquor — Notification datedmanufacture and sale of foreign liquor — Notification datedmanufacture and sale of foreign liquor — Notification dated

20-06-01 granting exemption from trade tax if declaration filed20-06-01 granting exemption from trade tax if declaration filed20-06-01 granting exemption from trade tax if declaration filed20-06-01 granting exemption from trade tax if declaration filed20-06-01 granting exemption from trade tax if declaration filed

that excise duty was paid — Reassessment proceeding startedthat excise duty was paid — Reassessment proceeding startedthat excise duty was paid — Reassessment proceeding startedthat excise duty was paid — Reassessment proceeding startedthat excise duty was paid — Reassessment proceeding started

due to non-filing of declaration — Claim to exemption rejecteddue to non-filing of declaration — Claim to exemption rejecteddue to non-filing of declaration — Claim to exemption rejecteddue to non-filing of declaration — Claim to exemption rejecteddue to non-filing of declaration — Claim to exemption rejected

by Tribunal — Challenged — Plea is that deckaration form wasby Tribunal — Challenged — Plea is that deckaration form wasby Tribunal — Challenged — Plea is that deckaration form wasby Tribunal — Challenged — Plea is that deckaration form wasby Tribunal — Challenged — Plea is that deckaration form was

filed and there was no fresh material to initiate reassesment —filed and there was no fresh material to initiate reassesment —filed and there was no fresh material to initiate reassesment —filed and there was no fresh material to initiate reassesment —filed and there was no fresh material to initiate reassesment —

Held plea is just and proper — Assessee had made sufficientHeld plea is just and proper — Assessee had made sufficientHeld plea is just and proper — Assessee had made sufficientHeld plea is just and proper — Assessee had made sufficientHeld plea is just and proper — Assessee had made sufficient

compliance of the terms and conditions of the notification,compliance of the terms and conditions of the notification,compliance of the terms and conditions of the notification,compliance of the terms and conditions of the notification,compliance of the terms and conditions of the notification,

hence benefit should be granted — Reassessment proceedingshence benefit should be granted — Reassessment proceedingshence benefit should be granted — Reassessment proceedingshence benefit should be granted — Reassessment proceedingshence benefit should be granted — Reassessment proceedings

are set aside — Revision allowed.are set aside — Revision allowed.are set aside — Revision allowed.are set aside — Revision allowed.are set aside — Revision allowed. [Seagram Manufacturing Pvt.

Ltd. Meerut v. C.C.T., U.P., 2010 (49) STJ 389 All. HC]

U.PU.PU.PU.PU.P. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE TAAAAAX ACTX ACTX ACTX ACTX ACT, 1948 — SECTION 2(i) — T, 1948 — SECTION 2(i) — T, 1948 — SECTION 2(i) — T, 1948 — SECTION 2(i) — T, 1948 — SECTION 2(i) — Turnover —urnover —urnover —urnover —urnover —

Meaning — Assessee imported coal from outside U.PMeaning — Assessee imported coal from outside U.PMeaning — Assessee imported coal from outside U.PMeaning — Assessee imported coal from outside U.PMeaning — Assessee imported coal from outside U.P. and real-. and real-. and real-. and real-. and real-

ized freight charges from brick-kiln owners — Question isized freight charges from brick-kiln owners — Question isized freight charges from brick-kiln owners — Question isized freight charges from brick-kiln owners — Question isized freight charges from brick-kiln owners — Question is

whether ‘whether ‘whether ‘whether ‘whether ‘TTTTTurnoverurnoverurnoverurnoverurnover ’ includes inward freight which was sepa-’ includes inward freight which was sepa-’ includes inward freight which was sepa-’ includes inward freight which was sepa-’ includes inward freight which was sepa-

rately charged? — Tribunal held in favour of assessee — Chal-rately charged? — Tribunal held in favour of assessee — Chal-rately charged? — Tribunal held in favour of assessee — Chal-rately charged? — Tribunal held in favour of assessee — Chal-rately charged? — Tribunal held in favour of assessee — Chal-

lenged by revenue — Plea of department is that assessee haslenged by revenue — Plea of department is that assessee haslenged by revenue — Plea of department is that assessee haslenged by revenue — Plea of department is that assessee haslenged by revenue — Plea of department is that assessee has

imported coal on its own behalf for further sale and there is noimported coal on its own behalf for further sale and there is noimported coal on its own behalf for further sale and there is noimported coal on its own behalf for further sale and there is noimported coal on its own behalf for further sale and there is no

evidence of purchase as commiission agent — Held plea is justevidence of purchase as commiission agent — Held plea is justevidence of purchase as commiission agent — Held plea is justevidence of purchase as commiission agent — Held plea is justevidence of purchase as commiission agent — Held plea is just

U.PU.PU.PU.PU.P. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE TAAAAAX ACTX ACTX ACTX ACTX ACT, 1948 — R, 1948 — R, 1948 — R, 1948 — R, 1948 — Rule 12-ule 12-ule 12-ule 12-ule 12-A(5) — VA(5) — VA(5) — VA(5) — VA(5) — Validity ofalidity ofalidity ofalidity ofalidity of

RRRRRule 12-ule 12-ule 12-ule 12-ule 12-A(5) was challenged by writ petition — AlternativelyA(5) was challenged by writ petition — AlternativelyA(5) was challenged by writ petition — AlternativelyA(5) was challenged by writ petition — AlternativelyA(5) was challenged by writ petition — Alternatively,,,,,

plea was taken that the same was not applicable to the facts ofplea was taken that the same was not applicable to the facts ofplea was taken that the same was not applicable to the facts ofplea was taken that the same was not applicable to the facts ofplea was taken that the same was not applicable to the facts of

the case — Held validity has already been held in the case ofthe case — Held validity has already been held in the case ofthe case — Held validity has already been held in the case ofthe case — Held validity has already been held in the case ofthe case — Held validity has already been held in the case of

K.B. Hides — Now not open to challenge the same on newK.B. Hides — Now not open to challenge the same on newK.B. Hides — Now not open to challenge the same on newK.B. Hides — Now not open to challenge the same on newK.B. Hides — Now not open to challenge the same on new

ground-Interference denied —Wground-Interference denied —Wground-Interference denied —Wground-Interference denied —Wground-Interference denied —Writ petition dismissed with lib-rit petition dismissed with lib-rit petition dismissed with lib-rit petition dismissed with lib-rit petition dismissed with lib-

erty to prefer appeal before the appellate authorityerty to prefer appeal before the appellate authorityerty to prefer appeal before the appellate authorityerty to prefer appeal before the appellate authorityerty to prefer appeal before the appellate authority..... [V.E. Com-

mercial Ltd. v. State of U.P., 2010 (49 )STJ 419 All. HC]

U.PU.PU.PU.PU.P. V. V. V. V. VALALALALALUE ADDED TUE ADDED TUE ADDED TUE ADDED TUE ADDED TAAAAAX ACTX ACTX ACTX ACTX ACT, 2008 — SECTION 48(7) —, 2008 — SECTION 48(7) —, 2008 — SECTION 48(7) —, 2008 — SECTION 48(7) —, 2008 — SECTION 48(7) —

Goods seized by mobile squad-Goods seized by mobile squad-Goods seized by mobile squad-Goods seized by mobile squad-Goods seized by mobile squad-Joint Commissioner (SIB) passedJoint Commissioner (SIB) passedJoint Commissioner (SIB) passedJoint Commissioner (SIB) passedJoint Commissioner (SIB) passed

order treating the seizure order legal — Challenged in writorder treating the seizure order legal — Challenged in writorder treating the seizure order legal — Challenged in writorder treating the seizure order legal — Challenged in writorder treating the seizure order legal — Challenged in writ

petition — Plea of petitioner is that no opportunity of hearingpetition — Plea of petitioner is that no opportunity of hearingpetition — Plea of petitioner is that no opportunity of hearingpetition — Plea of petitioner is that no opportunity of hearingpetition — Plea of petitioner is that no opportunity of hearing

was given and there is difference in signature and seal onwas given and there is difference in signature and seal onwas given and there is difference in signature and seal onwas given and there is difference in signature and seal onwas given and there is difference in signature and seal on

impugned order — Held, as per the record, allegations are notimpugned order — Held, as per the record, allegations are notimpugned order — Held, as per the record, allegations are notimpugned order — Held, as per the record, allegations are notimpugned order — Held, as per the record, allegations are not

correct as petitionercorrect as petitionercorrect as petitionercorrect as petitionercorrect as petitioner ’s counsel was heard — F’s counsel was heard — F’s counsel was heard — F’s counsel was heard — F’s counsel was heard — Further held thaturther held thaturther held thaturther held thaturther held that

petitioner has an alternative remedy by way of appeal againstpetitioner has an alternative remedy by way of appeal againstpetitioner has an alternative remedy by way of appeal againstpetitioner has an alternative remedy by way of appeal againstpetitioner has an alternative remedy by way of appeal against

the impugned order — Wthe impugned order — Wthe impugned order — Wthe impugned order — Wthe impugned order — Writ petition is dismissed with cost ofrit petition is dismissed with cost ofrit petition is dismissed with cost ofrit petition is dismissed with cost ofrit petition is dismissed with cost of

Rs. 5,000/- on the petitionerRs. 5,000/- on the petitionerRs. 5,000/- on the petitionerRs. 5,000/- on the petitionerRs. 5,000/- on the petitioner. . . . . [Jai Karan Chaurasi v. C.T.T., U.P., 2010

(49) STJ 420 All. HC]

U.PU.PU.PU.PU.P. V. V. V. V. VALALALALALUE ADDED TUE ADDED TUE ADDED TUE ADDED TUE ADDED TAAAAAX ACTX ACTX ACTX ACTX ACT, 2008 — SECTION 25(1)(ii),, 2008 — SECTION 25(1)(ii),, 2008 — SECTION 25(1)(ii),, 2008 — SECTION 25(1)(ii),, 2008 — SECTION 25(1)(ii),

26 — Whether after filing annual return, proceeding can be26 — Whether after filing annual return, proceeding can be26 — Whether after filing annual return, proceeding can be26 — Whether after filing annual return, proceeding can be26 — Whether after filing annual return, proceeding can be

taken u/s 25 (1)? — Wtaken u/s 25 (1)? — Wtaken u/s 25 (1)? — Wtaken u/s 25 (1)? — Wtaken u/s 25 (1)? — Writ petition filed — Held, No — Oncerit petition filed — Held, No — Oncerit petition filed — Held, No — Oncerit petition filed — Held, No — Oncerit petition filed — Held, No — Once

annual return is filed, assessing authority must proceed u/sannual return is filed, assessing authority must proceed u/sannual return is filed, assessing authority must proceed u/sannual return is filed, assessing authority must proceed u/sannual return is filed, assessing authority must proceed u/s

26— W26— W26— W26— W26— Writ allowed.rit allowed.rit allowed.rit allowed.rit allowed.

and proper — Assessee has failed tp prove himself to be aand proper — Assessee has failed tp prove himself to be aand proper — Assessee has failed tp prove himself to be aand proper — Assessee has failed tp prove himself to be aand proper — Assessee has failed tp prove himself to be a

commission agent and as such freight would be part of thecommission agent and as such freight would be part of thecommission agent and as such freight would be part of thecommission agent and as such freight would be part of thecommission agent and as such freight would be part of the

turnover — Revision allowed.turnover — Revision allowed.turnover — Revision allowed.turnover — Revision allowed.turnover — Revision allowed. [C.T.T., U.P. v. Kapil Vastu Ent. Nirmata

Kalyan Samiti, 2010 (49) STJ 403 All. HC]

U.PU.PU.PU.PU.P. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE TAAAAAX ACTX ACTX ACTX ACTX ACT, 1948 — SECTION 3-, 1948 — SECTION 3-, 1948 — SECTION 3-, 1948 — SECTION 3-, 1948 — SECTION 3-A — UltrasoundA — UltrasoundA — UltrasoundA — UltrasoundA — Ultrasound

scanner — Tscanner — Tscanner — Tscanner — Tscanner — Taxability — Whether it is taxable as electronic goodsaxability — Whether it is taxable as electronic goodsaxability — Whether it is taxable as electronic goodsaxability — Whether it is taxable as electronic goodsaxability — Whether it is taxable as electronic goods

@ 2%? — Tribunal relied on the decision of Apex Court in case@ 2%? — Tribunal relied on the decision of Apex Court in case@ 2%? — Tribunal relied on the decision of Apex Court in case@ 2%? — Tribunal relied on the decision of Apex Court in case@ 2%? — Tribunal relied on the decision of Apex Court in case

of BPL Ltd. and recorded a finding that major parts of theof BPL Ltd. and recorded a finding that major parts of theof BPL Ltd. and recorded a finding that major parts of theof BPL Ltd. and recorded a finding that major parts of theof BPL Ltd. and recorded a finding that major parts of the

ultrasound scanner are electronic in nature and therefore it isultrasound scanner are electronic in nature and therefore it isultrasound scanner are electronic in nature and therefore it isultrasound scanner are electronic in nature and therefore it isultrasound scanner are electronic in nature and therefore it is

taxable at the jower rate of 2% — Challenged by revenue —taxable at the jower rate of 2% — Challenged by revenue —taxable at the jower rate of 2% — Challenged by revenue —taxable at the jower rate of 2% — Challenged by revenue —taxable at the jower rate of 2% — Challenged by revenue —

Held view of Tribunal is correct, no error of law — RevisionHeld view of Tribunal is correct, no error of law — RevisionHeld view of Tribunal is correct, no error of law — RevisionHeld view of Tribunal is correct, no error of law — RevisionHeld view of Tribunal is correct, no error of law — Revision

dismissed. dismissed. dismissed. dismissed. dismissed. [JC.T.T., U.P. v. Titan Medical System Pvt., 2010 (49) STJ

409 All. HC]

Art. 226, Constitution of India — Scope — Where act ofArt. 226, Constitution of India — Scope — Where act ofArt. 226, Constitution of India — Scope — Where act ofArt. 226, Constitution of India — Scope — Where act ofArt. 226, Constitution of India — Scope — Where act of

authority is contrary to provision of law or without jurisdictionauthority is contrary to provision of law or without jurisdictionauthority is contrary to provision of law or without jurisdictionauthority is contrary to provision of law or without jurisdictionauthority is contrary to provision of law or without jurisdiction

then alternative remedy shall not be a bar to exercise jurisdic-then alternative remedy shall not be a bar to exercise jurisdic-then alternative remedy shall not be a bar to exercise jurisdic-then alternative remedy shall not be a bar to exercise jurisdic-then alternative remedy shall not be a bar to exercise jurisdic-

tion under Article 226 of the constitution of India — Wtion under Article 226 of the constitution of India — Wtion under Article 226 of the constitution of India — Wtion under Article 226 of the constitution of India — Wtion under Article 226 of the constitution of India — Writ peti-rit peti-rit peti-rit peti-rit peti-

tion is maintainable. tion is maintainable. tion is maintainable. tion is maintainable. tion is maintainable. [Gopal Traders v. State of U.P., 2010 (49) STJ

423 All. HC]

U.PU.PU.PU.PU.P. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE TAAAAAX ACTX ACTX ACTX ACTX ACT, 1948 — SECTION 3-F — Contention, 1948 — SECTION 3-F — Contention, 1948 — SECTION 3-F — Contention, 1948 — SECTION 3-F — Contention, 1948 — SECTION 3-F — Contention

of the revenue was that Tribunal wrongly set aside the tax onof the revenue was that Tribunal wrongly set aside the tax onof the revenue was that Tribunal wrongly set aside the tax onof the revenue was that Tribunal wrongly set aside the tax onof the revenue was that Tribunal wrongly set aside the tax on

the lease rent as the agreement entered inside the State —the lease rent as the agreement entered inside the State —the lease rent as the agreement entered inside the State —the lease rent as the agreement entered inside the State —the lease rent as the agreement entered inside the State —

Respondent’s plea was that agreements entered earlier andRespondent’s plea was that agreements entered earlier andRespondent’s plea was that agreements entered earlier andRespondent’s plea was that agreements entered earlier andRespondent’s plea was that agreements entered earlier and

thereafter goods moved from out of State — Transactions arethereafter goods moved from out of State — Transactions arethereafter goods moved from out of State — Transactions arethereafter goods moved from out of State — Transactions arethereafter goods moved from out of State — Transactions are

covered u/s 3 of the CST Act — Deduction available u/s 3-F ofcovered u/s 3 of the CST Act — Deduction available u/s 3-F ofcovered u/s 3 of the CST Act — Deduction available u/s 3-F ofcovered u/s 3 of the CST Act — Deduction available u/s 3-F ofcovered u/s 3 of the CST Act — Deduction available u/s 3-F of

the U.Pthe U.Pthe U.Pthe U.Pthe U.P. Act — Held that the goods purchased from out of State. Act — Held that the goods purchased from out of State. Act — Held that the goods purchased from out of State. Act — Held that the goods purchased from out of State. Act — Held that the goods purchased from out of State

liable to be taxed under CST Act and not within U.Pliable to be taxed under CST Act and not within U.Pliable to be taxed under CST Act and not within U.Pliable to be taxed under CST Act and not within U.Pliable to be taxed under CST Act and not within U.P. — Revi-. — Revi-. — Revi-. — Revi-. — Revi-

sion of department dismissed.sion of department dismissed.sion of department dismissed.sion of department dismissed.sion of department dismissed. [C.T.T., U.P. v. Industrial Develop-

ment Bank of India, 2010 (49) STJ 427 All. HC]

U.PU.PU.PU.PU.P. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE TAAAAAX ACTX ACTX ACTX ACTX ACT, 1948 — SECTION 15-, 1948 — SECTION 15-, 1948 — SECTION 15-, 1948 — SECTION 15-, 1948 — SECTION 15-A (1)(L) — PA (1)(L) — PA (1)(L) — PA (1)(L) — PA (1)(L) — Penenenenen-----

alty order — Challenged in writ petition — Plea is that U.Palty order — Challenged in writ petition — Plea is that U.Palty order — Challenged in writ petition — Plea is that U.Palty order — Challenged in writ petition — Plea is that U.Palty order — Challenged in writ petition — Plea is that U.P.....

TTTTTrade Trade Trade Trade Trade Tax Act is repealed by U.Pax Act is repealed by U.Pax Act is repealed by U.Pax Act is repealed by U.Pax Act is repealed by U.P. V. V. V. V. Value Added Talue Added Talue Added Talue Added Talue Added Tax Act henceax Act henceax Act henceax Act henceax Act hence

penalty order dated 05-02-10 is without jurisdiction — Heldpenalty order dated 05-02-10 is without jurisdiction — Heldpenalty order dated 05-02-10 is without jurisdiction — Heldpenalty order dated 05-02-10 is without jurisdiction — Heldpenalty order dated 05-02-10 is without jurisdiction — Held

plea is not tenable — Power to impose penalty envisaged u/splea is not tenable — Power to impose penalty envisaged u/splea is not tenable — Power to impose penalty envisaged u/splea is not tenable — Power to impose penalty envisaged u/splea is not tenable — Power to impose penalty envisaged u/s

15-A of the repealed Act is traceable even under the new Act15-A of the repealed Act is traceable even under the new Act15-A of the repealed Act is traceable even under the new Act15-A of the repealed Act is traceable even under the new Act15-A of the repealed Act is traceable even under the new Act

and is exercisable in the same manner — Hence proceeding ofand is exercisable in the same manner — Hence proceeding ofand is exercisable in the same manner — Hence proceeding ofand is exercisable in the same manner — Hence proceeding ofand is exercisable in the same manner — Hence proceeding of

penalty is legal and valid — writ petition dismissed.penalty is legal and valid — writ petition dismissed.penalty is legal and valid — writ petition dismissed.penalty is legal and valid — writ petition dismissed.penalty is legal and valid — writ petition dismissed. [Maheshwari

Agencies v. State of U.P. & Ors., 2010 (49) STJ 429 All. HC]

U.PU.PU.PU.PU.P. V. V. V. V. VALALALALALUE ADDED TUE ADDED TUE ADDED TUE ADDED TUE ADDED TAAAAAX ACTX ACTX ACTX ACTX ACT, 2008 — SECTIONS 48(7), 50, 2008 — SECTIONS 48(7), 50, 2008 — SECTIONS 48(7), 50, 2008 — SECTIONS 48(7), 50, 2008 — SECTIONS 48(7), 50

— Goods imported seized due to loading of extra goods in ve-— Goods imported seized due to loading of extra goods in ve-— Goods imported seized due to loading of extra goods in ve-— Goods imported seized due to loading of extra goods in ve-— Goods imported seized due to loading of extra goods in ve-

hicle beyond Fhicle beyond Fhicle beyond Fhicle beyond Fhicle beyond Form 38 — Goods released on security — Conorm 38 — Goods released on security — Conorm 38 — Goods released on security — Conorm 38 — Goods released on security — Conorm 38 — Goods released on security — Con-----

firmed by Tribunal — Challenged — Plea is that goods belong-firmed by Tribunal — Challenged — Plea is that goods belong-firmed by Tribunal — Challenged — Plea is that goods belong-firmed by Tribunal — Challenged — Plea is that goods belong-firmed by Tribunal — Challenged — Plea is that goods belong-

ing to assessee were duly entered in Fing to assessee were duly entered in Fing to assessee were duly entered in Fing to assessee were duly entered in Fing to assessee were duly entered in Form 38 without any de-orm 38 without any de-orm 38 without any de-orm 38 without any de-orm 38 without any de-

fect — Held plea is just and legal — Finding that Ffect — Held plea is just and legal — Finding that Ffect — Held plea is just and legal — Finding that Ffect — Held plea is just and legal — Finding that Ffect — Held plea is just and legal — Finding that Form 38 wasorm 38 wasorm 38 wasorm 38 wasorm 38 was

possibly being re-used is based on presumption — Fpossibly being re-used is based on presumption — Fpossibly being re-used is based on presumption — Fpossibly being re-used is based on presumption — Fpossibly being re-used is based on presumption — Form 38orm 38orm 38orm 38orm 38

was complete in regard to goodsof the assessee — Revisionwas complete in regard to goodsof the assessee — Revisionwas complete in regard to goodsof the assessee — Revisionwas complete in regard to goodsof the assessee — Revisionwas complete in regard to goodsof the assessee — Revision

allowed.allowed.allowed.allowed.allowed. [Balaji Timbers & Paints v. C.C.T., U.P., 2010 (49) STJ 433 All.

HC]

U.PU.PU.PU.PU.P. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE TAAAAAX ACTX ACTX ACTX ACTX ACT, 1948 — SECTION 3-, 1948 — SECTION 3-, 1948 — SECTION 3-, 1948 — SECTION 3-, 1948 — SECTION 3-A — Glucose andA — Glucose andA — Glucose andA — Glucose andA — Glucose and

sorbital — Meaning and taxability — Tribunal held glucose assorbital — Meaning and taxability — Tribunal held glucose assorbital — Meaning and taxability — Tribunal held glucose assorbital — Meaning and taxability — Tribunal held glucose assorbital — Meaning and taxability — Tribunal held glucose as

liquid sugar taxable at 4% under category of sugar which is aliquid sugar taxable at 4% under category of sugar which is aliquid sugar taxable at 4% under category of sugar which is aliquid sugar taxable at 4% under category of sugar which is aliquid sugar taxable at 4% under category of sugar which is a

declared commodity and Sorbital held medicine — Challengeddeclared commodity and Sorbital held medicine — Challengeddeclared commodity and Sorbital held medicine — Challengeddeclared commodity and Sorbital held medicine — Challengeddeclared commodity and Sorbital held medicine — Challenged

by department — Held view of Tribunal is correct, no error ofby department — Held view of Tribunal is correct, no error ofby department — Held view of Tribunal is correct, no error ofby department — Held view of Tribunal is correct, no error ofby department — Held view of Tribunal is correct, no error of

law — Revision dismissed. law — Revision dismissed. law — Revision dismissed. law — Revision dismissed. law — Revision dismissed. [C.T.T., U.P. v. Atma Ram & Company,

Kanpur, 2010 (49) STJ 435 All. HC]

U.PU.PU.PU.PU.P. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE TAAAAAX ACTX ACTX ACTX ACTX ACT, 1948 — SECTION 3-, 1948 — SECTION 3-, 1948 — SECTION 3-, 1948 — SECTION 3-, 1948 — SECTION 3-AB — MeaningAB — MeaningAB — MeaningAB — MeaningAB — Meaning

and applicability — Country liquor sold with packing materialand applicability — Country liquor sold with packing materialand applicability — Country liquor sold with packing materialand applicability — Country liquor sold with packing materialand applicability — Country liquor sold with packing material

— Separately charged in bill — T— Separately charged in bill — T— Separately charged in bill — T— Separately charged in bill — T— Separately charged in bill — Tax levied on packing materialax levied on packing materialax levied on packing materialax levied on packing materialax levied on packing material

— A— A— A— A— A.Y.Y.Y.Y.Y. 1997-98 to 2000-01 — Challenged in writ — Held tax is. 1997-98 to 2000-01 — Challenged in writ — Held tax is. 1997-98 to 2000-01 — Challenged in writ — Held tax is. 1997-98 to 2000-01 — Challenged in writ — Held tax is. 1997-98 to 2000-01 — Challenged in writ — Held tax is

leviable and Section 3-AB is not applicable — Claim of asses-leviable and Section 3-AB is not applicable — Claim of asses-leviable and Section 3-AB is not applicable — Claim of asses-leviable and Section 3-AB is not applicable — Claim of asses-leviable and Section 3-AB is not applicable — Claim of asses-

see for exemption rejected — Wsee for exemption rejected — Wsee for exemption rejected — Wsee for exemption rejected — Wsee for exemption rejected — Writ petition dismissed.rit petition dismissed.rit petition dismissed.rit petition dismissed.rit petition dismissed.

Section 21 — Reassessment for ASection 21 — Reassessment for ASection 21 — Reassessment for ASection 21 — Reassessment for ASection 21 — Reassessment for A.Y.Y.Y.Y.Y. 1997-98 and 1998-99 —. 1997-98 and 1998-99 —. 1997-98 and 1998-99 —. 1997-98 and 1998-99 —. 1997-98 and 1998-99 —

Sale of country liquor with packing material separately chargedSale of country liquor with packing material separately chargedSale of country liquor with packing material separately chargedSale of country liquor with packing material separately chargedSale of country liquor with packing material separately charged

— In original assessment exemption granted on packing mate-— In original assessment exemption granted on packing mate-— In original assessment exemption granted on packing mate-— In original assessment exemption granted on packing mate-— In original assessment exemption granted on packing mate-

rial — Reassessment made — Challenged — Plea is that entirerial — Reassessment made — Challenged — Plea is that entirerial — Reassessment made — Challenged — Plea is that entirerial — Reassessment made — Challenged — Plea is that entirerial — Reassessment made — Challenged — Plea is that entire

material was considered in assessment proceeding to grantmaterial was considered in assessment proceeding to grantmaterial was considered in assessment proceeding to grantmaterial was considered in assessment proceeding to grantmaterial was considered in assessment proceeding to grant

exemption — Held plea is tenable — Reassessment proceedingexemption — Held plea is tenable — Reassessment proceedingexemption — Held plea is tenable — Reassessment proceedingexemption — Held plea is tenable — Reassessment proceedingexemption — Held plea is tenable — Reassessment proceeding

amounts to change of opinion — Wamounts to change of opinion — Wamounts to change of opinion — Wamounts to change of opinion — Wamounts to change of opinion — Writ petition allowed. rit petition allowed. rit petition allowed. rit petition allowed. rit petition allowed. [Sir

Shadilal Enterprises Ltd. v. State of U.P. & Ors., 2010 (49) STJ 436 All.

HC]

U.PU.PU.PU.PU.P. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE TAAAAAX ACTX ACTX ACTX ACTX ACT, 1948 — SECTION 21 — NOTICES —, 1948 — SECTION 21 — NOTICES —, 1948 — SECTION 21 — NOTICES —, 1948 — SECTION 21 — NOTICES —, 1948 — SECTION 21 — NOTICES —

Initiation of proceedings under section 21 — Held : No rel-Initiation of proceedings under section 21 — Held : No rel-Initiation of proceedings under section 21 — Held : No rel-Initiation of proceedings under section 21 — Held : No rel-Initiation of proceedings under section 21 — Held : No rel-

evant material to form belief that there was escaped assess-evant material to form belief that there was escaped assess-evant material to form belief that there was escaped assess-evant material to form belief that there was escaped assess-evant material to form belief that there was escaped assess-

ment of tax — Only change of opinion — not permissible —ment of tax — Only change of opinion — not permissible —ment of tax — Only change of opinion — not permissible —ment of tax — Only change of opinion — not permissible —ment of tax — Only change of opinion — not permissible —

Notices issued quashedNotices issued quashedNotices issued quashedNotices issued quashedNotices issued quashed .....

/kkjk&21 ds vUrxZr izfØ;k dk izkjEHkhdj.k & fu.kZ; % ;g fo’okl fnykus ds fy;s

izek.k ugha fd dj Nqik;k x;k & dsoy fopkj esa ifjorZu & fopkj esa ifjorZu ds vk/kkj

ij izfØ;k izkjEHk djuk Lohdk;Z ugha & /kkjk&21 ds rgr tkjh uksfVlksa dks fujLr djus

dk vkns’kA [Asian P.P.G. Industries Ltd., Ghaziabad v. C.T.T., U.P. & Ors.,

2010 (49) STJ 448 All. HC]

U.PU.PU.PU.PU.P. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE TAAAAAX ACTX ACTX ACTX ACTX ACT, 1948 — SECTION 10-B — Revision —, 1948 — SECTION 10-B — Revision —, 1948 — SECTION 10-B — Revision —, 1948 — SECTION 10-B — Revision —, 1948 — SECTION 10-B — Revision —

Show cause notice given for AShow cause notice given for AShow cause notice given for AShow cause notice given for AShow cause notice given for A.Y.Y.Y.Y.Y. 2003-04 — Challenged — Plea. 2003-04 — Challenged — Plea. 2003-04 — Challenged — Plea. 2003-04 — Challenged — Plea. 2003-04 — Challenged — Plea

is that U.Pis that U.Pis that U.Pis that U.Pis that U.P. T. T. T. T. Trade Trade Trade Trade Trade Tax Act is repealed by U.Pax Act is repealed by U.Pax Act is repealed by U.Pax Act is repealed by U.Pax Act is repealed by U.P. V. V. V. V. Value Added Talue Added Talue Added Talue Added Talue Added Taxaxaxaxax

Act hence Section 10-B cannot be invoked — Held plea is notAct hence Section 10-B cannot be invoked — Held plea is notAct hence Section 10-B cannot be invoked — Held plea is notAct hence Section 10-B cannot be invoked — Held plea is notAct hence Section 10-B cannot be invoked — Held plea is not

tenable — Old rights and liabilities under Repealed Act istenable — Old rights and liabilities under Repealed Act istenable — Old rights and liabilities under Repealed Act istenable — Old rights and liabilities under Repealed Act istenable — Old rights and liabilities under Repealed Act is

saved and continued u/s 6 of General Clauses Act and savingsaved and continued u/s 6 of General Clauses Act and savingsaved and continued u/s 6 of General Clauses Act and savingsaved and continued u/s 6 of General Clauses Act and savingsaved and continued u/s 6 of General Clauses Act and saving

clause u/s 81 of U.Pclause u/s 81 of U.Pclause u/s 81 of U.Pclause u/s 81 of U.Pclause u/s 81 of U.P. V. V. V. V. VAAAAAT Act — Hence notice held legal andT Act — Hence notice held legal andT Act — Hence notice held legal andT Act — Hence notice held legal andT Act — Hence notice held legal and

valid — Wvalid — Wvalid — Wvalid — Wvalid — Writ petition dismissed. rit petition dismissed. rit petition dismissed. rit petition dismissed. rit petition dismissed. [Dharma Rice Mill v. State of U.P.

& Ors., 2010 (49) STJ 458 All. HC]

U.PU.PU.PU.PU.P. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE TAAAAAX ACTX ACTX ACTX ACTX ACT, 1948 — SECTION 21 — Reassess-, 1948 — SECTION 21 — Reassess-, 1948 — SECTION 21 — Reassess-, 1948 — SECTION 21 — Reassess-, 1948 — SECTION 21 — Reassess-

ment— Manufacture of alcohol — Sale of waste material andment— Manufacture of alcohol — Sale of waste material andment— Manufacture of alcohol — Sale of waste material andment— Manufacture of alcohol — Sale of waste material andment— Manufacture of alcohol — Sale of waste material and

taxability of out freight as part of turnover — Assessing au-taxability of out freight as part of turnover — Assessing au-taxability of out freight as part of turnover — Assessing au-taxability of out freight as part of turnover — Assessing au-taxability of out freight as part of turnover — Assessing au-

thority after consideration of material held waste material tax-thority after consideration of material held waste material tax-thority after consideration of material held waste material tax-thority after consideration of material held waste material tax-thority after consideration of material held waste material tax-

able at 5% and freight not part of turnover — Subsequentlyable at 5% and freight not part of turnover — Subsequentlyable at 5% and freight not part of turnover — Subsequentlyable at 5% and freight not part of turnover — Subsequentlyable at 5% and freight not part of turnover — Subsequently

notice to reassess issued — Challenged — Held it is change ofnotice to reassess issued — Challenged — Held it is change ofnotice to reassess issued — Challenged — Held it is change ofnotice to reassess issued — Challenged — Held it is change ofnotice to reassess issued — Challenged — Held it is change of

opinion based on same material relied on in original assess-opinion based on same material relied on in original assess-opinion based on same material relied on in original assess-opinion based on same material relied on in original assess-opinion based on same material relied on in original assess-

ment — Notices for reassessment are quashed — Wment — Notices for reassessment are quashed — Wment — Notices for reassessment are quashed — Wment — Notices for reassessment are quashed — Wment — Notices for reassessment are quashed — Writ petitionrit petitionrit petitionrit petitionrit petition

allowed.allowed.allowed.allowed.allowed. [Radico Khaitan Ltd. v. State of U.P. & Others, 2010 (49) STJ

462 All. HC]


books rejected due to non maintenance of manufacturing ac-books rejected due to non maintenance of manufacturing ac-books rejected due to non maintenance of manufacturing ac-books rejected due to non maintenance of manufacturing ac-books rejected due to non maintenance of manufacturing ac-

count — Business of making gitti from boulders — Assessmentcount — Business of making gitti from boulders — Assessmentcount — Business of making gitti from boulders — Assessmentcount — Business of making gitti from boulders — Assessmentcount — Business of making gitti from boulders — Assessment

confirmed by Tribunal — Challenged — Plea is that tax wasconfirmed by Tribunal — Challenged — Plea is that tax wasconfirmed by Tribunal — Challenged — Plea is that tax wasconfirmed by Tribunal — Challenged — Plea is that tax wasconfirmed by Tribunal — Challenged — Plea is that tax was

paid on boulders and hence there is no manufacturing activitypaid on boulders and hence there is no manufacturing activitypaid on boulders and hence there is no manufacturing activitypaid on boulders and hence there is no manufacturing activitypaid on boulders and hence there is no manufacturing activity

in making gitti — Held plea is just and proper — Account booksin making gitti — Held plea is just and proper — Account booksin making gitti — Held plea is just and proper — Account booksin making gitti — Held plea is just and proper — Account booksin making gitti — Held plea is just and proper — Account books

held proper but estimation of turnover needs further enquriyheld proper but estimation of turnover needs further enquriyheld proper but estimation of turnover needs further enquriyheld proper but estimation of turnover needs further enquriyheld proper but estimation of turnover needs further enquriy

and matter remanded to the Tribunal — Revision disposed of.and matter remanded to the Tribunal — Revision disposed of.and matter remanded to the Tribunal — Revision disposed of.and matter remanded to the Tribunal — Revision disposed of.and matter remanded to the Tribunal — Revision disposed of.

rS;kj fd;s x;s lkeku dk ys[kk u j[kus ds dkj.k ys[kk iqLrdsa fujLr & cM+s iRFkjksa

ls fxV~Vh cukus dk dk;Z & vf/kdj.k us fd;s x;s fu/kkZj.k dh iqf’V dh & pqukSrh & rdZ

;g fd cM+s iRFkjksa ij dj dk Hkqxrku dj fn;k x;k vr% fuekZ.k izfØ;k dk gksuk ekStwn

ugha & fu.kZ; gqvk fd rdZ lgh o U;k;ksfpr & ys[kk iqLrdksa dks lgh ekuk fdUrq VuZvksoj

ds vkdyu dh fQj ls djus dh t+:jr & ekeyk vf/kdj.k dks izfrizsf’kr & fjohtu

rn~uqlkj fuLrkfjrA [United Crushers v. C.T.T. U.P., 2010 (49) STJ 476 All. HC]

U.PU.PU.PU.PU.P. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE TAAAAAX ACTX ACTX ACTX ACTX ACT, 1948 — SECTION 7(3) — Manufac-, 1948 — SECTION 7(3) — Manufac-, 1948 — SECTION 7(3) — Manufac-, 1948 — SECTION 7(3) — Manufac-, 1948 — SECTION 7(3) — Manufac-

turer — Defination of — Assessee treated manufacturer of riceturer — Defination of — Assessee treated manufacturer of riceturer — Defination of — Assessee treated manufacturer of riceturer — Defination of — Assessee treated manufacturer of riceturer — Defination of — Assessee treated manufacturer of rice

due to ownership of machine — Challenged — Plea is that manu-due to ownership of machine — Challenged — Plea is that manu-due to ownership of machine — Challenged — Plea is that manu-due to ownership of machine — Challenged — Plea is that manu-due to ownership of machine — Challenged — Plea is that manu-

facture is done of paddy belonging to farmers — Held plea isfacture is done of paddy belonging to farmers — Held plea isfacture is done of paddy belonging to farmers — Held plea isfacture is done of paddy belonging to farmers — Held plea isfacture is done of paddy belonging to farmers — Held plea is

just — Matter requires investigation on this issue — Hencejust — Matter requires investigation on this issue — Hencejust — Matter requires investigation on this issue — Hencejust — Matter requires investigation on this issue — Hencejust — Matter requires investigation on this issue — Hence

matter remanded to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication.matter remanded to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication.matter remanded to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication.matter remanded to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication.matter remanded to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication.

e’khu dk ekfyd gksus ds dkj.k ,slSlh dks pkoy dk eSU;qQSDpjj ¼fuekZrk½ ekuk &pqukSrh & rdZ ;g fd fuekZ.k rks fdlku ds }kjk /kku dk fd;k tkrk gS & fu.kZ; % rdZ lgh& bl fcUnq ij tk¡p dh vko’;drk & vr% ekeyk vf/kdj.k dks iqufu.kZ; gsrq izfrizsf’krA[Ram Kumar v. C.T.T., U.P., 2010 (49) STJ 477 All. HC]

U.PU.PU.PU.PU.P. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE TAAAAAX ACTX ACTX ACTX ACTX ACT, 1948 — SECTIONS 7(3) & 12(2) —, 1948 — SECTIONS 7(3) & 12(2) —, 1948 — SECTIONS 7(3) & 12(2) —, 1948 — SECTIONS 7(3) & 12(2) —, 1948 — SECTIONS 7(3) & 12(2) —

Purchase of boulders and crushing it into gitties — In surveyPurchase of boulders and crushing it into gitties — In surveyPurchase of boulders and crushing it into gitties — In surveyPurchase of boulders and crushing it into gitties — In surveyPurchase of boulders and crushing it into gitties — In survey

chokidar was present and evasion of turnover of self manufac-chokidar was present and evasion of turnover of self manufac-chokidar was present and evasion of turnover of self manufac-chokidar was present and evasion of turnover of self manufac-chokidar was present and evasion of turnover of self manufac-

tured gitties was found — Challenged — Plea is that surveytured gitties was found — Challenged — Plea is that surveytured gitties was found — Challenged — Plea is that surveytured gitties was found — Challenged — Plea is that surveytured gitties was found — Challenged — Plea is that survey

was made in absence of assessee and boulders was purchasedwas made in absence of assessee and boulders was purchasedwas made in absence of assessee and boulders was purchasedwas made in absence of assessee and boulders was purchasedwas made in absence of assessee and boulders was purchased

from registered dealers — Held plea is just — Matter requiresfrom registered dealers — Held plea is just — Matter requiresfrom registered dealers — Held plea is just — Matter requiresfrom registered dealers — Held plea is just — Matter requiresfrom registered dealers — Held plea is just — Matter requires

investigation by Tribunal after giving opportunity of hearing ofinvestigation by Tribunal after giving opportunity of hearing ofinvestigation by Tribunal after giving opportunity of hearing ofinvestigation by Tribunal after giving opportunity of hearing ofinvestigation by Tribunal after giving opportunity of hearing of

assessee — Revision disposed of.assessee — Revision disposed of.assessee — Revision disposed of.assessee — Revision disposed of.assessee — Revision disposed of.

iRFkj ds cM+s VqdM+ksa dh [k+jhn o mudks fxV~Vh ds :i esa rS;kj djuk & losZ ds nkSjkupkSdhnkj ekStwn rFkk vius }kjk fufeZr fxfV~V;ksa ds VuZvksoj esa gsjkQsjh ik;h x;h & pqukSrh& rdZ ;g fd ,slSlh dh vuqifLFkfr esa losZ fd;k x;k vkSj ckmYMlZ ¼f’kyk[k.Mksa½ dksiathd`r Mhyjksa ls [k+jhnk x;k Fkk & fu.kZ; fn;k % rdZ lgh & ekeyk vf/kdj.k dks iqu%dk iz;ksx dky ckf/krk ds nk;js esa vkrk gS rFkk Lohd̀fr vkns’k ;kfU=d rjhd+s ls fcuk dkj.ktk¡p djus ds fy;s izfrizsf’kr & ,slSlh dks lquok;h dk volj fn;k tk;s & fjohturn~uqlkj fuLrkfjrA [Sarang Stone Crushing Company v. C.T.T., U.P., 2010

(49) STJ 479]

U.PU.PU.PU.PU.P. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE TAAAAAX ACTX ACTX ACTX ACTX ACT, 1948 — SECTIONS 3-, 1948 — SECTIONS 3-, 1948 — SECTIONS 3-, 1948 — SECTIONS 3-, 1948 — SECTIONS 3-AAAA — RULE-AAAA — RULE-AAAA — RULE-AAAA — RULE-AAAA — RULE-

75 —F75 —F75 —F75 —F75 —Form - C rejected by Torm - C rejected by Torm - C rejected by Torm - C rejected by Torm - C rejected by Tribunal and tax imposed — Chal-ribunal and tax imposed — Chal-ribunal and tax imposed — Chal-ribunal and tax imposed — Chal-ribunal and tax imposed — Chal-

lenged — Plea is that Flenged — Plea is that Flenged — Plea is that Flenged — Plea is that Flenged — Plea is that Form-orm-orm-orm-orm-C is on record and is genuine —C is on record and is genuine —C is on record and is genuine —C is on record and is genuine —C is on record and is genuine —

Ground to reject FGround to reject FGround to reject FGround to reject FGround to reject Form-orm-orm-orm-orm-C that it did not mention purchase orC that it did not mention purchase orC that it did not mention purchase orC that it did not mention purchase orC that it did not mention purchase or-----

der so is illegal — Held plea is just — Matter requires recon-der so is illegal — Held plea is just — Matter requires recon-der so is illegal — Held plea is just — Matter requires recon-der so is illegal — Held plea is just — Matter requires recon-der so is illegal — Held plea is just — Matter requires recon-

sideration — Tribunal is directed to verify the genuineness ofsideration — Tribunal is directed to verify the genuineness ofsideration — Tribunal is directed to verify the genuineness ofsideration — Tribunal is directed to verify the genuineness ofsideration — Tribunal is directed to verify the genuineness of

FFFFForm-orm-orm-orm-orm-C under RC under RC under RC under RC under Rule 75 of the U.Pule 75 of the U.Pule 75 of the U.Pule 75 of the U.Pule 75 of the U.P. T. T. T. T. Trade Trade Trade Trade Trade Tax Rax Rax Rax Rax Rules — Revisionules — Revisionules — Revisionules — Revisionules — Revision

disposed of.disposed of.disposed of.disposed of.disposed of.

vf/kdj.k us QkWeZ&C dks fujLr fd;k rFkk djkjksfir fd;k & pqukSrh & rdZ ;g fdQkeZ&C ekStwn gS rFkk lgh gS & QkWeZ&C dks fujLr djus dk vk/kkj ;g fd ml ij [k+jhnds vkns’k dk mYys[k ugha vr% og voS/k gS & fu.kZ; % rdZ lgh & ekeyk iqu% tk¡pk tkukpkfg;s & ;w0ih0 dj fu;eksa ds fu;e 75 ds rgr QkWeZ&C dh lR;rk dh tk¡p djus dsfy;s vf/kdj.k dks funsZf’kr fd;k & fjohtu fuLrkfjrA [Shyam Lal Kapoor Chand

v. C.T.T., U.P., 2010 (49) STJ 481]

U.PU.PU.PU.PU.P. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE TAAAAAX ACTX ACTX ACTX ACTX ACT, 1948 — SECTION 21(2) — Approval, 1948 — SECTION 21(2) — Approval, 1948 — SECTION 21(2) — Approval, 1948 — SECTION 21(2) — Approval, 1948 — SECTION 21(2) — Approval

granted to initiate reassessment — Agranted to initiate reassessment — Agranted to initiate reassessment — Agranted to initiate reassessment — Agranted to initiate reassessment — A.Y.Y.Y.Y.Y. 1997-98, 1998-99 —. 1997-98, 1998-99 —. 1997-98, 1998-99 —. 1997-98, 1998-99 —. 1997-98, 1998-99 —

Manufacture and sale of gas — Assessment was made — InitialManufacture and sale of gas — Assessment was made — InitialManufacture and sale of gas — Assessment was made — InitialManufacture and sale of gas — Assessment was made — InitialManufacture and sale of gas — Assessment was made — Initial

approval had been challenged in writ petition in year 2003 andapproval had been challenged in writ petition in year 2003 andapproval had been challenged in writ petition in year 2003 andapproval had been challenged in writ petition in year 2003 andapproval had been challenged in writ petition in year 2003 and

matter was remanded — Thereafter Additional Commissionermatter was remanded — Thereafter Additional Commissionermatter was remanded — Thereafter Additional Commissionermatter was remanded — Thereafter Additional Commissionermatter was remanded — Thereafter Additional Commissioner

sought report from assessing officer suosought report from assessing officer suosought report from assessing officer suosought report from assessing officer suosought report from assessing officer suo-moto and granted fresh-moto and granted fresh-moto and granted fresh-moto and granted fresh-moto and granted fresh

approval — Challenged — Plea is that exercise of suoapproval — Challenged — Plea is that exercise of suoapproval — Challenged — Plea is that exercise of suoapproval — Challenged — Plea is that exercise of suoapproval — Challenged — Plea is that exercise of suo-moto-moto-moto-moto-moto

powers was barred by limitation and again approval order waspowers was barred by limitation and again approval order waspowers was barred by limitation and again approval order waspowers was barred by limitation and again approval order waspowers was barred by limitation and again approval order was

passed mechanically without giving any reason — Held Addl.passed mechanically without giving any reason — Held Addl.passed mechanically without giving any reason — Held Addl.passed mechanically without giving any reason — Held Addl.passed mechanically without giving any reason — Held Addl.

Commissioner should be more careful and should applyCommissioner should be more careful and should applyCommissioner should be more careful and should applyCommissioner should be more careful and should applyCommissioner should be more careful and should apply, his, his, his, his, his

mind while granting the authorization — Hence approval or-mind while granting the authorization — Hence approval or-mind while granting the authorization — Hence approval or-mind while granting the authorization — Hence approval or-mind while granting the authorization — Hence approval or-

ders were quashed with cost of Rs. 25,000 payable by the Addl.ders were quashed with cost of Rs. 25,000 payable by the Addl.ders were quashed with cost of Rs. 25,000 payable by the Addl.ders were quashed with cost of Rs. 25,000 payable by the Addl.ders were quashed with cost of Rs. 25,000 payable by the Addl.

Commissioner to the petitioner — FCommissioner to the petitioner — FCommissioner to the petitioner — FCommissioner to the petitioner — FCommissioner to the petitioner — Further held that limitationurther held that limitationurther held that limitationurther held that limitationurther held that limitation

is not applicable relying the case of S.K. Traders — Henceis not applicable relying the case of S.K. Traders — Henceis not applicable relying the case of S.K. Traders — Henceis not applicable relying the case of S.K. Traders — Henceis not applicable relying the case of S.K. Traders — Hence

Addl. Commissioner is directed to pass a fresh order in accor-Addl. Commissioner is directed to pass a fresh order in accor-Addl. Commissioner is directed to pass a fresh order in accor-Addl. Commissioner is directed to pass a fresh order in accor-Addl. Commissioner is directed to pass a fresh order in accor-

dance with lawdance with lawdance with lawdance with lawdance with law.....

iqufuZ/kkZj.k gsrq Lohd`fr & fu/kkZj.k o’kZ 1997&98] 1998&99 & xSl dk fuekZ.k rFkkfcØh & fu/kkZj.k fd;k x;k & fjV iSVh’ku ds ek/;e ls o’kZ 2003 esa mijksDr Lohd`fr dkspqukSrh & ekeyk izfrizsf’kr & mlds ckn vfrfjDr dfe’uj us fu/kkZj.k vf/kdkjh ls viuhvksj ls Lo;a fjiksVZ ek¡xh rFkk iqu% Lohd`fr iznku dh & pqukSrh & rdZ ;g fd nksckjk “kfDrdk mYys[k fd;s] fn;k x;k & fu.kZ; % vfrfjDr deh’kuj dks vf/kd lpsr jguk pkfg;srFkk vf/kd`r djrs le; vius fnekx+ dk mi;ksx djuk pkfg;s & :0 25000 dh dksLVds lkFk Lohd̀fr vkns’k fujLr fd;s & jkf’k iSVh’kuj dks vfrfjDr deh’kuj ds }kjk fn;s tkusdk vkns’k & ;g Hkh fu.kZ; fn;k fd ,l0ds0 VsMZlZ ds dsl ds vk/kkj ij vof/k ckf/krk ykxwugha & vr% vfrfjDr deh’kuj] fof/k vuqlkj iqu% vkns’k tkjh djsA [Indian Air Gases


U.PU.PU.PU.PU.P. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE TAAAAAX ACTX ACTX ACTX ACTX ACT, 1948 — SECTIONS 15-, 1948 — SECTIONS 15-, 1948 — SECTIONS 15-, 1948 — SECTIONS 15-, 1948 — SECTIONS 15-A(1)(q) & 28-BA(1)(q) & 28-BA(1)(q) & 28-BA(1)(q) & 28-BA(1)(q) & 28-B

— Penalty imposed — Challenged — Tribunal held penalty is— Penalty imposed — Challenged — Tribunal held penalty is— Penalty imposed — Challenged — Tribunal held penalty is— Penalty imposed — Challenged — Tribunal held penalty is— Penalty imposed — Challenged — Tribunal held penalty is

leviable — Challenged — Plea is that goods sent by assessee toleviable — Challenged — Plea is that goods sent by assessee toleviable — Challenged — Plea is that goods sent by assessee toleviable — Challenged — Plea is that goods sent by assessee toleviable — Challenged — Plea is that goods sent by assessee to

Jaipur out of State — Held dispatch of goods out of State isJaipur out of State — Held dispatch of goods out of State isJaipur out of State — Held dispatch of goods out of State isJaipur out of State — Held dispatch of goods out of State isJaipur out of State — Held dispatch of goods out of State is

proved — Penalty is not leviable — Revision allowed.proved — Penalty is not leviable — Revision allowed.proved — Penalty is not leviable — Revision allowed.proved — Penalty is not leviable — Revision allowed.proved — Penalty is not leviable — Revision allowed.

vFkZn.M vkjksfir & pqukSrh & vf/kdj.k us fu.kZ; fn;k fd vFkZn.M vkjksi.kh; &pqukSrh & rdZ ;g fd eky ,slSlh }kjk jkT; ls ckgj t;iqj Hkstk x;k & fu.kZ;% eky dkjkT; ls ckgj Hkstuk fl) & vFkZn.M vkjksi.kh; ugha & fjohtu LohdkjA [Gyani Lal

Sharma v. C.T.T., U.P., 2010 (49) STJ 487 All. HC]

U.PU.PU.PU.PU.P. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE TAAAAAX ACTX ACTX ACTX ACTX ACT, 1948 — SECTION 21 — Reassessment, 1948 — SECTION 21 — Reassessment, 1948 — SECTION 21 — Reassessment, 1948 — SECTION 21 — Reassessment, 1948 — SECTION 21 — Reassessment

made on basis of seized papers found in survey — Seizedmade on basis of seized papers found in survey — Seizedmade on basis of seized papers found in survey — Seizedmade on basis of seized papers found in survey — Seizedmade on basis of seized papers found in survey — Seized

papers were in possession of ex-employee who confessed fab-papers were in possession of ex-employee who confessed fab-papers were in possession of ex-employee who confessed fab-papers were in possession of ex-employee who confessed fab-papers were in possession of ex-employee who confessed fab-

rication in some papers — Trication in some papers — Trication in some papers — Trication in some papers — Trication in some papers — Turnover assessed in first appeal onurnover assessed in first appeal onurnover assessed in first appeal onurnover assessed in first appeal onurnover assessed in first appeal on

basis of past year — Confirmed by Tribunal — Challenged —basis of past year — Confirmed by Tribunal — Challenged —basis of past year — Confirmed by Tribunal — Challenged —basis of past year — Confirmed by Tribunal — Challenged —basis of past year — Confirmed by Tribunal — Challenged —

Held, no basis or reason given in fixing turnover — MatterHeld, no basis or reason given in fixing turnover — MatterHeld, no basis or reason given in fixing turnover — MatterHeld, no basis or reason given in fixing turnover — MatterHeld, no basis or reason given in fixing turnover — Matter

remanded to Tribunal for reconsideration of quantum of turn-remanded to Tribunal for reconsideration of quantum of turn-remanded to Tribunal for reconsideration of quantum of turn-remanded to Tribunal for reconsideration of quantum of turn-remanded to Tribunal for reconsideration of quantum of turn-

over — Revision disposed of.over — Revision disposed of.over — Revision disposed of.over — Revision disposed of.over — Revision disposed of.

losZ esa izkIr dkx+tkr ds vk/kkj ij iqufuZ/kkj.k fd;k & izkIr dkx+t+kr iwoZ deZpkjh ds

d+Cts esa Fks] ftlus dqN dkx+tksa esa Qsj cny djuk Lohdkjk & izFke vihy esa fiNys o’kZ

ds vk/kkj ij VuZvksoj dk fu/kkZj.k fd;k & vf/kdj.k us iqf’V dh & pqukSrh & fu.kZ; %

VuZvksoj ds vkdyu dk dksbZ vk/kkj ;k dkj.k ugha fn;k & VuZvksoj dh /kkfjrk ds iqufoZpkj

gsrq ekeyk vf/kdj.k dks izfrizsf’kr & rn~uqlkj fjohtu fuLrkfjrA [ Cryogenics India


U.PU.PU.PU.PU.P. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE TAAAAAX ACTX ACTX ACTX ACTX ACT, 1948 — SECTIONS 7-D, 3-F —, 1948 — SECTIONS 7-D, 3-F —, 1948 — SECTIONS 7-D, 3-F —, 1948 — SECTIONS 7-D, 3-F —, 1948 — SECTIONS 7-D, 3-F —

Contract with dealer our of State — Contract was in two partsContract with dealer our of State — Contract was in two partsContract with dealer our of State — Contract was in two partsContract with dealer our of State — Contract was in two partsContract with dealer our of State — Contract was in two parts

— Due to mistake in second part of agreement, regarding— Due to mistake in second part of agreement, regarding— Due to mistake in second part of agreement, regarding— Due to mistake in second part of agreement, regarding— Due to mistake in second part of agreement, regarding

amount, regular assessment was made — First appeal was alityamount, regular assessment was made — First appeal was alityamount, regular assessment was made — First appeal was alityamount, regular assessment was made — First appeal was alityamount, regular assessment was made — First appeal was ality

held, yes — Challenged in first and second appeal and prayedheld, yes — Challenged in first and second appeal and prayedheld, yes — Challenged in first and second appeal and prayedheld, yes — Challenged in first and second appeal and prayedheld, yes — Challenged in first and second appeal and prayed

for full stay of tax — Tribunal granted 70% stay — Challengedfor full stay of tax — Tribunal granted 70% stay — Challengedfor full stay of tax — Tribunal granted 70% stay — Challengedfor full stay of tax — Tribunal granted 70% stay — Challengedfor full stay of tax — Tribunal granted 70% stay — Challenged

lowed — Confirmed by Tribunal — Challenged — Plea is thatlowed — Confirmed by Tribunal — Challenged — Plea is thatlowed — Confirmed by Tribunal — Challenged — Plea is thatlowed — Confirmed by Tribunal — Challenged — Plea is thatlowed — Confirmed by Tribunal — Challenged — Plea is that

rectification of mistake was sought in application u/s 22 whichrectification of mistake was sought in application u/s 22 whichrectification of mistake was sought in application u/s 22 whichrectification of mistake was sought in application u/s 22 whichrectification of mistake was sought in application u/s 22 which

was allowed — Held, Tribunal failed to notice rectification ofwas allowed — Held, Tribunal failed to notice rectification ofwas allowed — Held, Tribunal failed to notice rectification ofwas allowed — Held, Tribunal failed to notice rectification ofwas allowed — Held, Tribunal failed to notice rectification of

mistake which needs reconsideration by Tribunal — Revisionmistake which needs reconsideration by Tribunal — Revisionmistake which needs reconsideration by Tribunal — Revisionmistake which needs reconsideration by Tribunal — Revisionmistake which needs reconsideration by Tribunal — Revision

allowed and matter remanded to Tribunal.allowed and matter remanded to Tribunal.allowed and matter remanded to Tribunal.allowed and matter remanded to Tribunal.allowed and matter remanded to Tribunal.

jkT; ds ckgj Mhyj ls daVªsDV & daVªsDV nks Hkkxksa esa & le>kSrs ds nwljs Hkkx esa /kujkf’kds lEcU/k esa xyrh jgus ds dkj.k] lkekU; fu/kkZj.k fd;k x;k & izFke vihy Lohdkj &vf/kdj.k us iqf’V dh & pqukSrh & rdZ ;g fd x+yrh dk fujkdj.k /kkjk 22 ds vUrxZrvkosnu djds ek¡xk x;k] ftls Lohdkj fd;k x;k & fu.kZ;% vf/kdj.k us x+yrh ds fujkdj.kds ckjs esa ugha lkspk] tks vf/kdj.k ds }kjk iqufoZpkj esa ykuk vko’;d & fjoht+u Lohdkj]ekeyk vf/kdj.k dks izfrizsf’krA [Kumar Brothers v. C.T.T., U.P., 2010 (49) STJ

492 All. HC]

U.PU.PU.PU.PU.P. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE TAAAAAX ACTX ACTX ACTX ACTX ACT, 1948 — SECTION 8(1) — Levy of, 1948 — SECTION 8(1) — Levy of, 1948 — SECTION 8(1) — Levy of, 1948 — SECTION 8(1) — Levy of, 1948 — SECTION 8(1) — Levy of

interest on the admitted tax on account of non-filing of requi-interest on the admitted tax on account of non-filing of requi-interest on the admitted tax on account of non-filing of requi-interest on the admitted tax on account of non-filing of requi-interest on the admitted tax on account of non-filing of requi-

site Fsite Fsite Fsite Fsite Forms for availing exemption or concessional rate of tax —orms for availing exemption or concessional rate of tax —orms for availing exemption or concessional rate of tax —orms for availing exemption or concessional rate of tax —orms for availing exemption or concessional rate of tax —

Matter referred to Division Bench as conflicting judgments wereMatter referred to Division Bench as conflicting judgments wereMatter referred to Division Bench as conflicting judgments wereMatter referred to Division Bench as conflicting judgments wereMatter referred to Division Bench as conflicting judgments were

available — On reference, held that in the event of non-fur-available — On reference, held that in the event of non-fur-available — On reference, held that in the event of non-fur-available — On reference, held that in the event of non-fur-available — On reference, held that in the event of non-fur-

nishing of declaration form, tax has to be levied at the normalnishing of declaration form, tax has to be levied at the normalnishing of declaration form, tax has to be levied at the normalnishing of declaration form, tax has to be levied at the normalnishing of declaration form, tax has to be levied at the normal

rate which would become the admitted tax and interest u/srate which would become the admitted tax and interest u/srate which would become the admitted tax and interest u/srate which would become the admitted tax and interest u/srate which would become the admitted tax and interest u/s

8(1) would be leviable from the due date of return — F8(1) would be leviable from the due date of return — F8(1) would be leviable from the due date of return — F8(1) would be leviable from the due date of return — F8(1) would be leviable from the due date of return — Furtherurtherurtherurtherurther

held that there is no scope for consideration of legitimate ex-held that there is no scope for consideration of legitimate ex-held that there is no scope for consideration of legitimate ex-held that there is no scope for consideration of legitimate ex-held that there is no scope for consideration of legitimate ex-

pectation or hope or bonafide plea u/s 8(1). pectation or hope or bonafide plea u/s 8(1). pectation or hope or bonafide plea u/s 8(1). pectation or hope or bonafide plea u/s 8(1). pectation or hope or bonafide plea u/s 8(1). [C.T.T., U.P. v. Control

Switch Gears Company Ltd., 2010 (49) STJ 493 All. HC]

U.PU.PU.PU.PU.P. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE TAAAAAX ACTX ACTX ACTX ACTX ACT, 1948 — SECTION 7(3) — Business of, 1948 — SECTION 7(3) — Business of, 1948 — SECTION 7(3) — Business of, 1948 — SECTION 7(3) — Business of, 1948 — SECTION 7(3) — Business of

sale and purchase of hand tools — Account books rejected andsale and purchase of hand tools — Account books rejected andsale and purchase of hand tools — Account books rejected andsale and purchase of hand tools — Account books rejected andsale and purchase of hand tools — Account books rejected and

estimate made — Confirmed by Tribunal who enhanced turn-estimate made — Confirmed by Tribunal who enhanced turn-estimate made — Confirmed by Tribunal who enhanced turn-estimate made — Confirmed by Tribunal who enhanced turn-estimate made — Confirmed by Tribunal who enhanced turn-

over — Challenged — Plea is that no basis given for enhance-over — Challenged — Plea is that no basis given for enhance-over — Challenged — Plea is that no basis given for enhance-over — Challenged — Plea is that no basis given for enhance-over — Challenged — Plea is that no basis given for enhance-

ment — Held plea is just and proper — Revision allowed andment — Held plea is just and proper — Revision allowed andment — Held plea is just and proper — Revision allowed andment — Held plea is just and proper — Revision allowed andment — Held plea is just and proper — Revision allowed and

matter remanded to Tribunalmatter remanded to Tribunalmatter remanded to Tribunalmatter remanded to Tribunalmatter remanded to Tribunal

gS.M Vwyksa dk Ø;&foØ; dk O;olk; & ys[kk iqLrdsa fujLr rFkk fu/kkZj.k fd;k x;k& vf/kdj.k us iqf’V dh rFkk VuZvksoj dks c<+k;k & pqukSrh & rdZ ;g fd c<ksrjh djusdk dksbZ dkj.k ugha fn;k x;k & fu.kZ; % rdZ lgh & fjohtu Lohdkj o ekeyk vf/kdj.kdks izfrizf’krA [Navdurga Machinery Store v. C.C.T., U.P., 2010 (49) STJ

506 All. HC]

U.PU.PU.PU.PU.P. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE TAAAAAX ACTX ACTX ACTX ACTX ACT, 1948 — SECTION 2(i) — T, 1948 — SECTION 2(i) — T, 1948 — SECTION 2(i) — T, 1948 — SECTION 2(i) — T, 1948 — SECTION 2(i) — Turnover —urnover —urnover —urnover —urnover —

Whether it includes value of child parts? — Assessing authorWhether it includes value of child parts? — Assessing authorWhether it includes value of child parts? — Assessing authorWhether it includes value of child parts? — Assessing authorWhether it includes value of child parts? — Assessing author

— Held assessee’s plea is prima facie correct — Held full stay— Held assessee’s plea is prima facie correct — Held full stay— Held assessee’s plea is prima facie correct — Held full stay— Held assessee’s plea is prima facie correct — Held full stay— Held assessee’s plea is prima facie correct — Held full stay

was granted subject to furnishing security and expeditious fi-was granted subject to furnishing security and expeditious fi-was granted subject to furnishing security and expeditious fi-was granted subject to furnishing security and expeditious fi-was granted subject to furnishing security and expeditious fi-

nal disposal of appeal — Matter remanded for early disposal —nal disposal of appeal — Matter remanded for early disposal —nal disposal of appeal — Matter remanded for early disposal —nal disposal of appeal — Matter remanded for early disposal —nal disposal of appeal — Matter remanded for early disposal —

Revision disposed of.Revision disposed of.Revision disposed of.Revision disposed of.Revision disposed of.

VuZvksoj & D;k blesa ^cPps ds Hkkx* dh d+her Hkh lfEefyr gksaxh \ & djfu/kkZj.k vf/kdkjh us bls ,slk gksuk ekuk & izFke rFkk f}rh; vihy esa pqukSrh rFkk lEiw.kZdj dks LFkfxr djus dh izkFkZuk & vf/kdj.k us 70% LFkxu fd;k & pqukSrh & fu.kZ; %,slSlh dk rdZ lgh & fu.kZ; % laiw.kZ LFkxu bl vk/kkj ij fd izfrHkwfr tek dh tk; &vihy dk Rofjr fuLrkj.k & ekeyk “kh?kz fuiVkus gsrq izfrizsf’kr & fjohtu fuLrkfjrA[Honda siel Cars India Ltd. v. C.C.T., U.P., 2010 (49) STJ 507 All. HC]

U.PU.PU.PU.PU.P. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE T. TRADE TAAAAAX ACTX ACTX ACTX ACTX ACT, 1948 — SECTION 7(3) — Goods im-, 1948 — SECTION 7(3) — Goods im-, 1948 — SECTION 7(3) — Goods im-, 1948 — SECTION 7(3) — Goods im-, 1948 — SECTION 7(3) — Goods im-

ported from outside State of UP — Vported from outside State of UP — Vported from outside State of UP — Vported from outside State of UP — Vported from outside State of UP — Value included in turnoveralue included in turnoveralue included in turnoveralue included in turnoveralue included in turnover

treating same related to assessee — After remand by Tribunaltreating same related to assessee — After remand by Tribunaltreating same related to assessee — After remand by Tribunaltreating same related to assessee — After remand by Tribunaltreating same related to assessee — After remand by Tribunal

to consider connection of goods with assessee, not compliedto consider connection of goods with assessee, not compliedto consider connection of goods with assessee, not compliedto consider connection of goods with assessee, not compliedto consider connection of goods with assessee, not complied

with by assessing authority — Challenged — Held identity ofwith by assessing authority — Challenged — Held identity ofwith by assessing authority — Challenged — Held identity ofwith by assessing authority — Challenged — Held identity ofwith by assessing authority — Challenged — Held identity of

person who imported goods not proved — Vperson who imported goods not proved — Vperson who imported goods not proved — Vperson who imported goods not proved — Vperson who imported goods not proved — Value of the allegedalue of the allegedalue of the allegedalue of the allegedalue of the alleged

goods wrongly included in turnovergoods wrongly included in turnovergoods wrongly included in turnovergoods wrongly included in turnovergoods wrongly included in turnover, hence set aside — Revi-, hence set aside — Revi-, hence set aside — Revi-, hence set aside — Revi-, hence set aside — Revi-

sion allowed.sion allowed.sion allowed.sion allowed.sion allowed.

mRrj izns’k ds ckgj ls eky dk vk;kr & ewY;] VuZvksoj esa ;g dgrs gq, lfEefyrfd ;g ,slSlh ls lEc) gS & vf/kdj.k dks eky dh ,slSlh ls lEc)rk ij fopkj djusgsrq izfrizsf’kr] dj fu/kkZj.k vf/kdkjh us vuqikyu ugha fd;k & pqukSrh & fu.kZ; % ml O;fDrdh igpku ugha] ftlus eky dk vk;kr fd;k & VuZvksoj esa mDr eky dk ewY; “kkfeydjuk mfpr ugha] vr% ;g jn~n & fjohtu LohdkjA [Agarwal Brothers, Pratapgarh

v. C.T.T., U.P., 2010 (49) STJ 511 All. HC]

U.P. TRADE TAAAX ACT, 1948 — SECTION 8 — …lawpublications.in/tax_digest/Vol. 49 (2010).pdfU.P....

Documents

Transcript of U.P. TRADE TAAAX ACT, 1948 — SECTION 8 — …lawpublications.in/tax_digest/Vol. 49 (2010).pdfU.P....