9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (9) TMI 753 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxBenefit 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 - similar issue covered by the case of AR. Rice Mills Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, UP. Lucknow 2009 (11) TMI 861 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT , where relying in the case of 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 benefit already allowed - Matter is remanded to Tribunal to decide same afresh.
Issues:
Common questions of law related to the denial of benefits under Section 4-BB of the U.P. Trade Tax Act for the purchase of raw material (paddy) and the subsequent set off claimed by the assessees. Analysis: The judgment addresses a series of revisions concerning the denial of benefits under Section 4-BB of the U.P. Trade Tax Act. The assessees, engaged in rice manufacturing and sale, had eligibility certificates under Section 4-A for tax rebates on fixed capital investments. They purchased paddy as raw material, paid tax on it, and sought set off under Section 4-BB before benefiting from Section 4-A. Discrepancies arose where some Assessing Officers allowed the set off, which was later recalled, leading to appeals and tribunal decisions. The assessees contended that the denial of benefits was unjustified, citing circulars and statutory provisions supporting their claims. The judgment highlighted the statutory nature of the benefits and emphasized the need for consistent treatment in similar cases, referencing legal precedents to support this principle. The Court noted that a Division Bench had previously allowed similar benefits in a case, contrasting with the Single Member's denial in the present revisions. It stressed the importance of consistency in legal decisions, citing relevant cases and the significance of precedent in maintaining certainty in the law. Consequently, the Court set aside the tribunal's orders and remanded the matters for a fresh decision, instructing the tribunal to consider the legal precedents and provide a fair opportunity for the assessees to present their case. The judgment aimed to ensure a just and uniform application of the law in line with established legal principles and precedents. In a subsequent judgment related to similar issues, the Court extended the principles laid down in the earlier decision, emphasizing the need for a consistent approach in addressing identical legal matters. The parties agreed on the similarity of facts and issues, leading to a common order for all revisions. The Court reiterated the directions given in the prior judgment, setting the stage for a fresh consideration of the issues by the tribunal. The consistent application of legal principles and the importance of providing a fair hearing to all parties were central themes in both judgments, reflecting a commitment to upholding the rule of law and ensuring justice in tax matters.
|
