9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (8) TMI 297X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... used in the instant case, but, in fact, the same was nothing but consideration for transfer of proprietary right in the movable property of lichen upon payment of consideration fixed by the Forest Department. Knowing that it was a consideration for transfer of proprietary right in the movable property of lichen by the Forest Department to the revisionist, the Forest Department, as duty bound, charged trade tax as it was liable to do under the U.P. Trade Tax Act - Decided in favour of Assessee. - Commercial Tax Revision No. 3 to 14 of 2010 - - - Dated:- 25-4-2012 - BARIN GHOSH, U.C. DHYANI, JJ. Mr. S.K. Posti and Mr. B.S. Negi, Advocates for the revisionist. Mr. K.P. Upadhyaya, Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Ut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the same condition as it receives the same from the Forest Department in the manner indicated above. In relation to such sale, no trade tax is collected by the revisionist. The revisionist, in its returns to the Department, held out so and the same was also accepted by the Trade Tax Department for a few of the assessment years. Later, at one point of time, it transpired that the assessee is selling such lichen at a very high price than the price of acquisition of the same. The Assessing Authority felt that the assessee must be adding value to lichen obtained by it from the Forest Department. After being convinced that the revisionist is not doing so, it felt that the collection of lichen is being done by the assessee upon payment of r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee were being purchased by the assessee from the forest department or the same were being collected by the assessee from the forest on being licensed to do so having been declared the highest bidder in an auction, was challenged. The Hon ble Court held that, where the material on record is not sufficient to take an effective decision in one way or the other in a given case and a further inquiry is called for, the concerned authority or the court may set aside the matter in exercise of its power of remand directing for a fresh order after the necessary inquiry is made. Holding thus, the Hon ble Court dismissed the revision application. In the circumstances, the conclusion would be that the said judgment had no relevance to the questions that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as above, which is not in dispute, suggests that the Forest Department licensed the revisionist, upon deposit of security money of ₹ 10,000/-, to enter the earmarked forest for the purpose of collection of lichen, which was also earmarked for being transferred to the revisionist; but the revisionist was duty bound to collect such lichen, keep the same in the godown of the Forest Department before the same was transferred by the Forest Department to the revisionist upon payment of an agreed consideration. In such circumstances, the intention of the parties was not to grant a right or privilege to the revisionist, but to make the revisionist work for the Forest Department to collect lichen for and on behalf and for the use of the Fores ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
