2009 (11) TMI 861 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Benefit of section 4BB of the Act - Held that - The benefit of Sec 4BB is the statutory benefit and the assessees are entitled for the said benefit. To this effect, the Commissioner has already issued a circular No. 554 dated July 22, 2004. See Diksha Suri v. ITAT 1997 (5) TMI 20 - DELHI High Court , Union of India v. Paras Laminates Pvt. Ltd. 1990 (8) TMI 140 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA and Commissioner of Income-tax v. Ramamurthi 1976 (10) TMI 18 - MADRAS High Court wherein the said benifit already allowed. Set aside all the impugned orders passed by the Tribunal and restored the matter back to the Tribunal to decide the issue de novo

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of section 4BB of the U.P. Trade Tax Act for set-off of tax paid on raw material.
2. Consistency in application of statutory benefits by the assessing officer and appellate authorities.
3. Adherence to precedent and consistency in decision-making by the Tribunal.

Analysis:
1. The judgment addresses the interpretation of section 4BB of the U.P. Trade Tax Act concerning the set-off of tax paid on raw material, specifically paddy, by the assessees engaged in the manufacture and sale of rice. The assessees had eligibility certificates under section 4A and claimed set-off under section 4BB. The Commissioner's circular supported this claim, and the Tribunal had previously allowed similar benefits in other cases. However, a single member of the Tribunal denied this benefit in the present cases, leading to the assessees' appeal to the High Court.

2. The issue of consistency in applying statutory benefits arises as assessing officers had varied in allowing or recalling the set-off claimed by the assessees. The first appellate authority upheld the assessees' claims, but the Tribunal, in the impugned orders, sided with the Department, leading to conflicting decisions. The High Court emphasized the need for uniform treatment in similar cases and cited precedents highlighting the importance of consistency in decision-making to avoid prejudice to the assessees.

3. The judgment underscores the importance of adherence to precedent and consistency in decision-making by the Tribunal. The High Court referred to previous decisions emphasizing that similar matters should receive similar treatment, citing legal cases to support this principle. The Court directed the Tribunal to reconsider the issue by following established ratios and providing the assessees with a fair opportunity to present their case. The Tribunal was granted the flexibility to admit new evidence if necessary for the sake of justice, emphasizing the importance of a fair and consistent application of the law.

In conclusion, the High Court allowed all revisions filed by the assessees for statistical purposes, setting aside the Tribunal's orders and directing a fresh consideration of the issue in line with established legal principles and precedents, ensuring a fair and consistent application of statutory benefits in similar cases.