9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (9) TMI 337X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 4-A of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948. The petitioner established a unit for the manufacture of T.V. cabinet. For getting exemption the petitioner applied for the grant of eligibility certificate under section 4-A of the U.P. Sales Tax Act and also annexed other documents pertaining to the same (annexure 1 to the petition). According to the petitioner, he was not aware but he did receive an intimation letter that the said application has been rejected when the matter was put up before the Divisional Level Committee on July 30, 1988. The rejection was only on the ground that the verification of the machinery worth Rs. 4,000 could not be made which is alleged to have been purchased from a firm of Delhi. In other words, the question was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e 10 to the writ petition. In the various affidavits the case of the petitioner is that the said machine which was only for Rs. 4,000 was new and any finding to the contrary made by the respondent No. 2 is not legal or proper. Similarly, the petitioner averred that a purchase of small tools from M/s. S.S. Engineering Works for Rs. 879 was also made. This bill consists of 38 small items which has been supplied at the site of the petitioner's factory. The life of the said tools, according to the petitioner, is not even one month. The contention of the petitioner is, in spite of the aforesaid affidavits annexed and the contention raised in the review application, the said review application has been rejected by the respondent No. 2 by a cryp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y has been purchased ceases to function an inference is drawn that the petitioner is not entitled for grant of exemption is not proper or legal. In the present case the evidence did exist and the authorities were to scrutinise the same and arrive at its own conclusion whether the machinery used in the petitioner-unit was used earlier or not in terms of section 4-A. Hence, on this ground alone, the impugned order is not sustainable. Learned counsel for the petitioner made reliance in the case of J.K. Steels v. State of U.P. (decided by this Court on August 24, 1994) (printed at page 573 supra) wherein this Court considered the rejection of exemption application in a case where an insignificant or small part of machinery was found to be o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
