9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (4) TMI 530X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... does not show that the Commissioner Trade Tax U.P. has considered the various factors before deciding that Inverter and UPSS are electrical goods. Following the judgement of Apex Court in State of Goa and others Vs. Leukoplast (India) Ltd.,[1997 (2) TMI 124 (SC)] the matter is remanded back to the A.O. Writ petition is disposed off. - WRIT- TAX No. - 550 of 2007 - - - Dated:- 15-4-2013 - Prakash Krishna And Ram Surat Ram (Maurya),JJ. For the Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar, Praveen Kumar For the Respondent :- C. S. C. JUDGMENT (Delivered by Ram Surat Ram (Maurya) J) 1. Heard Sri Ashok Kumar, counsel for the petitioner and Sri C.B. Tripathi, Special Counsel for State of U.P., for the respondents. 2. The aforementi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed an appeal from the assessment order for the Assessment Year 2003-04, which was allowed by the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) and it was held that Inverters and UPSSs sold by the petitioner were electronic goods and trade tax at the rate of 4% was payable on it. But the Assessing Officer, again for the Assessment Year 2004-05, by the impugned order has assessed the trade tax liability on Inverters and UPSSs at the rate of 10%. It has stated that the Commissioner of Trade Tax U.P. has issued a Circular dated 02.09.2000 in which it has been held that Inverters, and UPSSs work as 'power supply devices' and trade tax at the rate of 4% was payable on it. The controversy in this respect has been settled by the order of the appellate authority int ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er was granted. Now the pleadings have been exchanged between the parties and the writ petition has come up for hearing after about six years as such dismissing the writ petition on the ground of alternative remedy is not proper; particularly when the controversy has already been decided by this Court, Trade Tax Tribunal as well as by the appellate authority inter partes for the Assessment Year 2003-04. Supreme Court in the case of Durga Enterprises( P) Ltd. vs. Principal Secretary and others, (2004) 13 SCC 665 and this Court in the case of Roashan Lal vs. State of U.P. 2010(1) UPLBEC 202 (DB) have held that if pleadings are exchanged then the case may be decided on merits irrespective of alternative remedy being available. In view of the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n authoritative pronouncement in respect of the controversy involved in the writ petition. At this stage, the counsel for the petitioner wanted that he may be permitted to produce the orders of the Tribunal in the aforementioned cases but we did not find it proper, in view of the admission of the petitioner in paragraph-3 (iii) of the Rejoinder Affidavit, that his own case was decided by the Division Bench of this Court along with M/S Micritek International Pvt Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. and others, (2010) 44 NTN 59, in which this Court has remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for decision afresh. The judgement of the Tribunal (filed as Annexure-10 to the writ petition) is under the provisions of Central Excise Act, 1944 as such are not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ectrical energy including fluorescent tubes (including their starters, chokes, fixtures, fittings and accessories), electrical earthenware and porcelain, electrical equipments, plants and their accessories required for generation, distribution and transmission of electrical energy, electric meters and parts thereof and all other accessories and components whether sold as a whole or in parts but excluding torches, torch cells, dry cell batteries, torch-bulbs and filament lighting bulbs and also excluding goods mentioned in clause (ii) below. M or I 10 % (ii) Washing machines, vacuum cleaners, voltage stabilisers, fans, air circulators, transformers, transmission wires and towers, electrical cables and A.C.S. R. co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t while UPSS used to generate alternative current of electricity during power cut as well as it controls voltage during power supply. 10. Whether the Inverter and UPSS are "electrical equipments" or "electronic components" and in which of the above two entries, these items are falling can only be decided by detail inquiry by the fact findings authority on the basis of the report of Electronic Commission as well as considering the fact that how these goods are regarded in common parlance. We find that in various items mentioned in the two entries, the manufacturing components are the electronic components and these items cannot be used without the aid of electricity. Thus intricate question of fact is involved in the writ petition which ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
