1994 (9) TMI 336 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of the definition of "sale" under the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948.
2. Determination of whether an order passed under section 3-B of the Act amounts to an assessment order.
3. Consideration of the period of limitation for passing an order under section 3-B.
4. Analysis of the non obstante clause in section 3-B in relation to other provisions of the Sales Tax Act.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The judgment pertains to a revision petition under section 11 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948, challenging an order passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal. The issue involved the interpretation of the definition of "sale" as amended by U.P. Act No. 25 of 1985, which included sales made on hire-purchase basis within its scope. The Tribunal remanded the matter back to the assessing officer due to the change in law, requiring a fresh determination. The revisionist contended that the Tribunal erred in not deciding the question of limitation and the sale on hire-purchase basis itself, arguing that the remand was unjustified.

2. The revisionist argued that an order passed under section 3-B of the Act should be considered as an assessment order and must comply with the limitation period of 4 years from the end of the assessment year as per section 21(2). Citing precedent, the revisionist maintained that the order in question, passed after more than 8 years, should have adhered to the prescribed limitation period. The Standing Counsel countered that an order under section 3-B does not constitute an assessment order, relying on previous judgments. The Tribunal's failure to address this issue was highlighted as erroneous.

3. The plea of limitation raised by the revisionist before the first appellate authority and the Tribunal was deemed a legal issue that should have been settled by the Tribunal. The revisionist's argument was supported by a previous judgment that established the applicability of the limitation period to orders under section 3-B. The Tribunal's oversight in addressing this issue was emphasized, indicating a lapse in the decision-making process.

4. The judgment also delved into the interpretation of the non obstante clause in section 3-B, emphasizing that it does not exempt such orders from other provisions of the Sales Tax Act. The clause was deemed applicable to the liability of a dealer but not to aspects such as determination, limitation, or recovery. The revision petition was allowed based on the aforementioned grounds, annulling the previous order and awarding costs to the revisionist. The judgment provided a comprehensive analysis of the legal issues raised and the application of relevant legal principles to arrive at the final decision.