9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 414X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tire papers sold to the applicant and hence in view of notification no.732 dated 7.3.2005 issued under section 5 of U.P.Trade Tax Act, Trade Tax rebate was allowed to the full extent since entry tax was paid @ 5%. Accordingly, in view of Notification no.1307 dated 28.4.2005 no State Development Tax is leviable in view of clause (3) of the Notification dated 28.4.2005 - Held that:- where the rate of entry tax and trade tax is at 5%, consequently rebate has to be given on trade tax - Following decision of M/s Rana Papers Limited through Director Noor Salim Rana Vs. The State of U.P. and others [2013 (9) TMI 71 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] - Decided against assessee. - Sales/Trade Tax Revision No. - 543 of 2010, Sales/Trade Tax Revision No. - 544 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he facts of the case are that the revisionist purchases paper, which is taxable under Notification no.730 dated 7.3.2005 @ 5% under Section 3A(1) of U.P.Trade Tax Act. The papers, which were purchased by the revisionist were large, the same were being cut in small size, so it is the case of the revisionist that the cutting of paper from big to small does not entail the imposition of any tax for a second time because the Entry No.39 of Notification dated 7.3.2005 reads as hereunder:- "Paper of all kind..........whether meant for writing, copying packing or for any other purpose including Mill board, duplex board and gray board etc." It is the contention of the revisionist that the revisionist had already paid taxes on the large size pape ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... identity or the use of the commodity does not change. Having heard learned Counsels on both side and having perused the material on record, it is clear that the view of the Tribunal is mistaken, insofar as the first question is concerned, because the law insofar as the definition of manufacture is well settled for decades. Reliance is also placed on Union of India Vs. Delhi Cloth General Mills reported in 1963 AIR 791, 1963(1)Suppl.SCR 586 wherein the Apex Court came to the conclusion that in order to establish manufacture a new and different article must emerge having a distinctive name, character and use. Thus, the question no.1 is answered in favour of the assessee and against the department. Insofar as the third question is conce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
