2016 (8) TMI 1341 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Grant of benefits conferred by Section 4-A of the 1948 Act - eligibility of the assessee to be treated as a new unit which had been set up and established with the aid of machinery which was new and had not been used in any manner in any other industrial establishment - Held that - Under Section 4-A, the onus to establish the fulfillment of all conditions for the grant of an eligibility certificate is placed solely upon the assessee. It is not for the Department to disprove a contention and which has always remained only a contention of the revisionist. No evidence was laid before the authorities which may have even tended to establish an import of new machinery into the State. In fact the subsequent enquiries undertaken by the authorities has itself seemed to indicate that the claim of the revisionist was unsubstantiated and unverifiable. All these, in the opinion of this Court are pure issues of fact which would not warrant interference by the Court in its revisional jurisdiction - revision dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Eligibility for benefits under Section 4-A of the 1948 Act based on establishment as a new unit with new machinery; Rejection of claim by Divisional Level Committee and Tribunal; Review application outcome; Fresh inquiries by Department; Allegations of forged bills and invoices; Examination of evidence from Maharashtra Sales Tax Officer and Sales Tax Authorities; Letter from UPFC regarding payment details; Revisionist's contention of lack of fresh evidence; Onus of proof on the assessee under Section 4-A.

Analysis:
The judgment concerns the revision challenging the decision of the Tribunal upholding the Divisional Level Committee's ruling on the eligibility of the assessee for benefits under Section 4-A of the 1948 Act. The dispute revolves around the establishment as a new unit with new machinery not used elsewhere. The Division Level Committee conducted a detailed inquiry into machinery sourced from Maharashtra, ultimately rejecting the claim for benefits. A review application met a similar fate. Previous rejections and a remand order for fresh inquiry were part of the history. The Tribunal affirmed the Divisional Level Committee's decision, prompting a fresh inquiry by the Trade Tax Department following court directions.

The Tribunal found the revisionist failed to prove how machinery entered Uttar Pradesh, citing a report from the Maharashtra Sales Tax Officer discrediting the alleged suppliers. The Tribunal concluded the bills and invoices were forged, denying the eligibility certificate. The Department's subsequent report highlighted discrepancies in the revisionist's claims, including unrecorded bills and lack of evidence from suppliers. A letter from the Deputy Commissioner, Sales Tax in Maharashtra, also refuted the revisionist's claims of machinery supply.

The revisionist emphasized a letter from UPFC detailing payment methods post-Tribunal order, arguing against the Department's failure to gather new evidence. However, the court noted the revisionist's burden to prove eligibility under Section 4-A. Both the Divisional Level Committee and Tribunal repeatedly found the revisionist's claims unsubstantiated. The court deemed the issue factual, warranting no revisional interference due to lack of evidence supporting machinery import claims. Consequently, the revision was dismissed for lacking merit.