Allahabad High Court
M/S Vinay Wires And Poly Products ... vs Commissioner Of Commerical Tax ... on 13 January, 2023
Bench: Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 10
Case :- SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 558 of 2010
Revisionist :- M/S Vinay Wires And Poly Products Pvt. Ltd.
Opposite Party :- Commissioner Of Commerical Tax U.P. Lucknow
Counsel for Revisionist :- ,Rahul Agarwal
Counsel for Opposite Party :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
1. Heard Sri Rahul Agarwal, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri A.C. Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel for the State.
2. This revision has been preferred under Section 58 of the U.P. VAT Act, 2008 against the order of the Tribunal dated 16.02.2010 passed in Second Appeal No. 544 of 2007 for assessment year 2004-05 (Central).
3. The revisionist before this Court is a Private Limited Company and is registered under the provisions of Companies Act and is engaged in the business of manufacture of Multi Layer Poly Film. The revisionist was granted exemption under Section 4-A of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter called as "Act of 1948") on 15.04.2000 read with Section 8(5) of the Central Act for a period of 12 years beginning from 28.08.1999. The assessing authority while making assessment order for the assessment year 2004-05 (Central) on 28.02.2007 refused to grant concession under Section 4-AA of the Act on the ground that the assessee has not submitted From-C against the transaction on inter-State sale. Aggrieved by the assessment order, a first appeal was preferred which was dismissed vide order dated 14.08.2007. The assessee filed a second appeal before the Tribunal being Second Appeal No. 544 of 2007 which was also rejected by the Tribunal by order impugned. Hence, the present revisions.
4. Earlier on 14.07.2010, the revision was admitted on following questions of law:-
"1- Whether, the applicant is entitled to rebate/concession in the rate of tax during the AY 2004-05 (Central) under notification No.TT-2-779 dated 31.3.1995 issued under section 4AA of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 read with section 9(2) of the Central Sale Tax Act, 1956?
2- Whether the amendment to the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 made by Finance Act, 2002 applies to notification No. 781 dated 31.3.1995 and whether exemption from tax could be curtailed for alleged non compliance of condition imposed by the aforesaid amendment?
5. Subsequently, when the matter was heard on 10.11.2021, the Court found that the following substantial question of law actually arose for consideration:-
"Whether in view of the judgement of this Court in Yamaha Motor Escorts Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in Manu/UP/2465/2010, whether non-production of form 'C' could be taken to be a ground to deny set-off of such higher rate of tax than the payable rate of tax from the limit prescribed in the eligibility certificate under Section 4A of the Trade Tax Act"
6. Sri Rahul Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for the revisionist has placed before the Court the decision rendered by Division Bench of this Court in case of Yamaha Motor Escorts Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. and others, Manu/UP/2465/2010, wherein the Division Bench had taken a view that non-production of form C/D cannot be taken to be a ground to deny the set-off of higher rate of tax from the limits prescribed in the eligibility certificate under Section 4A of the Act of 1948.
7. Per contra, Sri A.C. Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel while defending the order of the Tribunal, however, could not dispute the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in case of Yamaha Motor Escorts Limited (supra).
8. Having heard the rival submissions and after perusing the material on record, this Court finds that question of law framed on 10.11.2021 is squarely covered by the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in case of Yamaha Motor Escorts Limited (supra) wherein the Division Bench held as under:-
"16. We, therefore, hold that, whereas the amendments to the Central Sales Tax Act by the Finance Act No. 20 of 2002 published on May 13, 2002, are valid and do not suffer from any vice of discrimination, and also do not violate principle of promissory estoppel qua the Petitioner, the higher rate of tax payable for non-compliance of the amended provisions of Section 8(5) namely non-production of form C/D, cannot be taken to be a ground to deny the set-off of such higher rate of tax from the limits prescribed in the eligibility certificate under Section 4A of the Trade Tax Act, subject to other conditions, namely, the maximum limit for particular year or period and maximum amount for which such exemption is provided.
17. All the writ petitions are partly allowed. The assessing authorities are required to modify the assessment orders accordingly and to allow set-off to the Petitioners, which was earlier denied to them on the rate of tax, without the benefit of reduced rate of tax on the inter-State transactions for which forms C/D were not produced. The required modification shall be carried out within a period of two months from the date of production of this judgment."
9. In view of said fact, as the controversy is no more res-integra and Division Bench has settled the issue that non-production of form C/D, cannot be taken to be a mere ground to deny the set-off of higher rate of tax from the limits prescribed in the eligibility certificate under Section 4A of the Trade Tax Act, subject to other conditions, namely, the maximum limit for particular year or period and maximum amount for which such exemption is provided.
10. Thus, the order passed by the Tribunal dated 16.02.2010 is unsustainable in the eyes of law and the same is hereby set aside.
11. The revision stands allowed.
12. The question of law as framed above stands answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.
Order Date :- 13.1.2023
V.S.Singh
