1995 (7) TMI 374 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Revision under section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act against the judgment and order of remand by the Trade Tax Tribunal.
2. Eligibility certificate for exemption from sales tax under section 4-A of the Act.
3. Dismissal of application for eligibility certificate extension by the Chairman, NOIDA.
4. Previous legal actions including Writ Petitions and appeals.
5. Dispute over the closure of the industrial unit for more than six months.
6. Legality of the remand order by the Trade Tax Tribunal.

Analysis:

1. The judgment involves a revision under section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act against the decision of the Trade Tax Tribunal, which remanded the matter to the Chairman, NOIDA for reconsideration and fresh decision. The revisionist, a public limited company, sought an eligibility certificate for exemption from sales tax under section 4-A of the Act for its industrial unit in Uttar Pradesh.

2. The eligibility certificate was initially granted for a limited period, leading to the revisionist's application for an extension till the full four-year period. Despite legal actions such as Writ Petitions and appeals, the Chairman, NOIDA dismissed the application, citing closure of the factory for more than six months as a reason for denial of exemption.

3. The key issue revolved around the dispute regarding the closure of the industrial unit for over six months. The Chairman, NOIDA based its decision on a report from a committee that disbelieved the evidence presented, including the statement of the Superintendent of Central Excise. The Tribunal was tasked with reconsidering this issue.

4. The Court analyzed the actions of the Chairman, NOIDA and the Tribunal, noting that the officers did not give due weight to the statement of the Superintendent of Central Excise, a public servant engaged in fiscal matters. The Court emphasized the importance of evaluating evidence properly and avoiding unnecessary prolongation of legal proceedings.

5. Ultimately, the Court found merit in the revisionist's argument that the Tribunal should have recorded a finding of fact based on the available evidence, rather than remanding the matter back to the Chairman, NOIDA. The Court set aside the previous judgment and directed the Tribunal to rehear the appeal, emphasizing the need for a fresh decision within a specified timeframe.

6. The judgment highlights the significance of proper evaluation of evidence, adherence to legal principles, and efficient resolution of disputes to prevent wastage of resources. It underscores the role of the Tribunal in recording findings of fact based on available material to ensure a just outcome for all parties involved in the legal proceedings.