Allahabad High Court High Court

The Commissioner Trade Tax U.P. … vs S/S. Foremost Industries (India) … on 2 April, 2010

Allahabad High Court
The Commissioner Trade Tax U.P. … vs S/S. Foremost Industries (India) … on 2 April, 2010
Court No. - 33

Case :- SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 321 of 2003

Petitioner :- The Commissioner Trade Tax U.P. Lucknow
Respondent :- S/S. Foremost Industries (India) Ltd. Kailashpur Saharanpur
Petitioner Counsel :- C.S.C.
Respondent Counsel :- Ashok Kumar


Hon'ble Bharati Sapru,J.

Heard learned standing counsel for the State and Sri Ashok Kumar
for the assessee.

This revision has been filed by the State under Section 11(1) of the
U.P.Trade Tax Act for the assessment year 1990-91 against the
order of the Tribunal dated 27.11.2002. The questions of law
referred to are hereunder:

“(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the
Trade Tax Tribunal has correctly accepted the dealer’s account
books inspite of the fact a number of discrepancies and sufficient
adverse material was there available on record exhibited by
various surveys ?

(ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the
Trade Tax Tribunal has correctly applied the judgment of Hon’ble
High Court in the matter of Commissioner, Sales Tax, U.P. vs.
Gauraya Straw and Card Board Mill, Kashipur,
1999 U.P.T.C.
1111 (Supra) while deciding the taxability of the rice husk ?

(iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the
Trade Tax Tribunal has correctly decided the taxability of rice
husk in view of the judgment of Hon’ble High Court in the matter
of Commissioner, Sales Tax, U.P. vs. Navin Traders, 1973
U.P.T.C.-215 ?

(iv) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the
Trade Tax Tribunal has correctly utilized the material available
on record ?”

The Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the assessee was not
liable to pay tax on paddy husk which had been purchased by it as
fuel. The Tribunal has also accepted the books of account of the
assessee. I see no reason to interfere in the order passed by the
Tribunal.

In view of the above, the order of the Tribunal is justified. No
question of law arises. I see no reason to interfere with the order of
the Tribunal.

This revision is dismissed. No costs.

Order Date :- 2.4.2010
AKJ