Allahabad High Court
Satyam Trading Company vs Commisioner Of Trade/Commercial ... on 3 January, 2023
Bench: Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 10
Case :- SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 821 of 2013
Revisionist :- Satyam Trading Company
Opposite Party :- Commisioner Of Trade/Commercial Tax Lko.
Counsel for Revisionist :- Krishna Agrawal
Counsel for Opposite Party :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
1. Heard Sri Krishna Agrawal, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Rishi Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the State.
2. This revision has been filed under Section 58 of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008 (hereinafter called as "VAT Act") against the judgment of the Tribunal dated 26.11.2012 passed in Second Appeal No.135 of 2009.
3. The revision was admitted on 22.10.2013 on the following question of law :
"i. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in not deciding the issue regarding concessional rate of tax on sale of paddy to Rice Miller/s against Form 3B @ 2%?
ii. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the applicant was entitled to concessional rate of tax @ 2% on the purchase of paddy which has been sold to Rice Millers against Form 3B in view of the decision of this Hon'ble Court in the case of : Pawan Sut Trading Co. vs. CTT 2007 UPTC 636?"
4. The Assessee is a registered dealer and is engaged in the business of purchase and sale of lentils, oil, seed, paddy. The Assessing Authority vide assessment order dated 28.03.2007 had held that certain purchase were made outside the account books and enhanced the purchase, against which the Assessee preferred first appeal which was dismissed vide order dated 03.10.2008. Against the said order, the Assessee preferred second appeal before Commercial Tax Tribuanl, Allahabad Bench and the same was decided vide order impugned dated 26.11.2012.
5. Sri Krishna Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the Assessee submitted that the Assessing Authority was not correct in taxing the Assessee @ 4% instead of 2% as the sale of paddy to the Rice Miller was made. He further contended that specific ground was taken by the Assessee before the Tribunal but the Tribunal without considering the ground raised by the Assessee had dismissed the appeal in a cryptic manner.
6. Sri Rishi Kumar, learned Standing Counsel while defending the order passed by Tribunal however could not dispute the fact that the Tribunal has not recorded any finding as to the grounds taken by the Assessee in its appeal.
7. I have heard the respective counsel and perused the material on record.
8. The Assessee had taken a specific ground No.7 in his appeal before the Tribunal wherein it was stated that against the Form 3-B, sale was made to the Rice Miller and he was entitled for being taxed @ 2% instead of 4%. The Tribunal without considering the said ground taken in the appeal, has proceeded to dismiss the appeal. Counsel for the revisionist relied on the judgment of coordinate bench of this Court in Pawan Sut Trading Co. vs. CTT 2007 UPTC 636.
9. In view of the said fact the order passed by the Tribunal dated 26.11.2012 is unsustainable in the eyes of law and the same is hereby set aside. The case is remanded back to Tribunal to decide the appeal afresh after considering all the grounds raised by the Assessee in its appeal as the Tribunal is the last fact finding Court, and has to record finding on each grounds raised in the appeal. The Tribunal shall also take into consideration the decision of this Court in Pawan Sut Trading Co. (supra) while deciding the appeal.
10. In view of the said fact, the revision stands partly allowed.
11. The question of law framed above stand answered in favour of Assessee and against the Revenue.
Order Date :- 3.1.2023
Kushal
