Court No. - 33 Case :- SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 29 of 2003 Petitioner :- M/S Dayal Hosiery India Thru' Its Proprietor Respondent :- The Commissioner Of Trade Tax, Lucknow Petitioner Counsel :- Piyush Agarwal Respondent Counsel :- S.C. Hon'ble Bharati Sapru,J.
Heard learned counsel for the assessee, Sri Piyush
Agarwal, and Sri B.K.Pandey, the learned standing
counsel for the State.
This revision has been filed by the assessee under
Section 11 of the U.P.Trade Tax Act for the
assessment year 1996-97 against the order of the
Tribunal dated 28.10.2002. The questions of law
referred to are hereunder:
“(i) Whether the Trade Tax Tribunal as well as the
lower authorities are justified in imposing the tax @
5% instead of 2% which was prevailing at the
relevant time ?
(ii) Whether the Trade Tax Tribunal was justified in
not allowing the appeal of the applicant in toto in
spite of finding of fact recorded in favour of the
applicant ?
(iii) Whether in the absence of any adverse material
on record, the Trade Tax Tribunal and the lower
authorities were not justified in not giving the
benefit of tax on the sale of hosiery cloth to the tune
of Rs.1,08,41,474/ made by the applicant.
(iv) Whether in any view of the matter, the order
passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal is justified ?”
The assessee is seeking the benefit of a notification
issued on 25.5.1994, No.1625. However, upon
perusal of the entire record it does not appear that
the assessee has taken any point before the 1st
Appellate Authority or before the IInd Appellate
Authority with regard to imposition of tax @ 2% on
hosiery of all kinds. It is for the first time in this
revision that this issue is being agitated, therefore, it
can not be said that the Tribunal has committed any
mistake in passing the impugned order dated
28.10.2002.
This revision has no merit and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 27.1.2010
AKJ