Allahabad High Court
M/S Shreetron India Ltd. vs The Commissioner Of Commercial ... on 1 August, 2019
Bench: Saumitra Dayal Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 1
Case :- SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 2160 of 2008
Revisionist :- M/S Shreetron India Ltd.
Opposite Party :- The Commissioner Of Commercial Tax U.P. Lucknow
Counsel for Revisionist :- Rakesh Ranjan Agrawal,Sayush Agarwal
Counsel for Opposite Party :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. Heard Shri Rakesh Ranjan Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Suyash Agarwal, for the applicant and Shri B.K. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the revenue.
2. Present revision arises from a common order passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal, Ghaziabad dated 13.02.2008 in Second Appeal No. 580 of 2002 for A.Y. 1997-98 (U.P.). By that order, the Tribunal has dismissed the appeal and thus confirmed the order of the first appeal authority.
3. The present revision has been pressed on questions nos. (ii), (iii), (iv) and (v) noted below:
"(ii) Whether the goods amounting to Rs. 63,84,348/- purchased by the applicant in the course of inter-state trade or commerce were consumed in the same form and condition at the site in the execution of works contract, the amount of Rs. 63,84,348/- represented the goods covered u/s 3 of the Central Sales Tax Act, and qualifies for deduction u/s 3F(2)(b) of the Act, the Tribunal was right in not adjudicating the issue?
(iii) Whether the Tribunal rightly did not adjudicate the issue the TDS amount of Rs. 4,48,934/- deducted at the time of purchase of goods amounting to Rs. 63,84,348/- was not liable to be deducted?
(iv) Whether the Tribunal rightly taxed Copper Bus Bar, as unclassified item @ 10% instead of 2.5% as per Notification No. 1225 dated 31.03.1992 especially when for A.Y. 1995-96 (U.P.), it was taxed @ 2.5%?
(v) Whether the Tribunal rightly did not adjudicate the issue relating to the imposition of interest when the entire admitted tax amounting to Rs. 9,42,796/- was deposited by the applicant, whereas the admitted tax liability amounting to Rs. 9,33,375/- only?
4. Insofar as question no.(ii) is concerned, the same issue has been dealt with and decided as question nos. (ii), (iii) & (iv) in Sales/Trade Tax Revision No. 2172 of 2008 (M/s. Shreeton India Ltd Vs. The Commissioner of Commercial Tax U.P. Lucknow) by a separate order passed today. The only difference in the two revisions is the figure being Rs. 63,84,348/- in the present case.
5. For the reasons contained in the order passed today (01.08.2008) in Sales/Trade Tax Revision No. 2172 of 2008, the present question of law (question no.ii) is also found to have been wrongly decided by the Tribunal, inasmuch as there is no discussion as to how the contract executed by the assessee had been treated to be a divisible contract and how the assessee had been subjected to tax on supply of goods.
6. Insofar as question no.(iii) is concerned, again, the findings recorded by the Tribunal are found to be lacking in reason. For that reason, the same cannot be sustained and the matter must be sent back to the Tribunal to decide afresh.
7. Question no. (iv) is similar to question no.(v) in Sales/Trade Tax Revision No. 2172 of 2008, which has been decided today. Again, the order of the Tribunal is unreasoned. Accordingly, the matter is remitted to the Tribunal.
8. Question no. (v) pertains to demand of interest. Since the issue on merits has been sent back to the Tribunal to decide afresh, it is necessary that this matter may also be remitted to the Tribunal.
9. In view of the above, the order of the Tribunal is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Tribunal to pass a fresh order strictly in accordance with law. It may take special care that each finding of fact to be recorded, must be supported by reasoning arising from the material that may be placed before the Tribunal. The aforesaid exercise may be concluded as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.
10. Accordingly, the present revision stands allowed.
Order Date :- 1.8.2019
AHA
