9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (11) TMI 1004X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isional Level Committee, vide its order dated April 28, 1994 modified the eligibility certificate and granted exemption under section 4-A of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 for a period of six years from the date of first sale. However, subsequently, it was found that the unit of the opposite-party was not situated within the limit of Tahsil-Dadari and it was situated within the limit of Tahsil-Ghaziabad. Therefore, the eligibility certificate was again amended reducing the period of exemption to five years holding that exemption for six years was not in accordance with law. The order dated January 8, 1996 amending the eligibility was served upon the dealer on February 6, 1996. The assessing authority made assessment for the year 1995-96 and levied tax of Rs. 6,25,17,375 but granted remission in respect of Rs. 5,25,91,650, vide demand letter dated January 6, 1998 in view of G.O. No. T.T-2-1042/11-94-9(6)/94 dated May 26, 1994 and demand of Rs. 99,25,725 was raised. The dealer filed appeal against the order dated January 6, 1998 which was dismissed as being not maintainable. Second appeal was also dismissed by the Tribunal. Thereafter, the dealer approached the High Court by filing a r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter, it is the fault of the assessee and remission cannot be granted on the ground that no tax has been realised by the dealer. It is next submitted that the question of remission could be decided by the assessing authority and the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to decide this question and make a direction to the assessing authority to grant remission. Shri Bharat Ji Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the opposite-party, has submitted that from annexure-2 of the compilation filed by the revisionist it is quite evident that before moving an application for enhancing the period of exemption from five years to six years enquiry was made by the dealer from the various authorities. Only when it was certified that the unit is situated in Tahsil-Dadari, the application for amendment in the eligibility certificate was moved. Therefore, the assessee acted bona fidely and there was no question of playing any fraud or misrepresentation of facts. It is also submitted that it is nowhere pointed out that the certificate given by the TahsildarDadari was given in collusion with the unit. It is also argued that the unit of the assessee is situated in industrial area developed by U.P.S.I.D. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... od of six years. Therefore, the contention of opposite-party that it bona fidely believed that its unit is situated within the local limits of Tahsil-Dadari and, therefore, it approached the revenue authorities, viz, Tahsil-Dadari to issue a certificate in this regard, appears to be true. Tahsildar Dadari issued certificate to the dealer certifying that its unit was situated within the local limits of TahsilDadari. There is no material on record to substantiate the argument of Sri S.D. Singh, learned Standing Counsel, that the amendment in the eligibility certificate was claimed on misrepresentation of facts and the Tribunal's finding that there was no fraud (tkylkth), is perverse. M/s. Surpal Bikes (Pvt.) Ltd., M/s. Mahabeer Thermo-insulation (Pvt.) Ltd., M/s. Mridula Detergent (Pvt.) Ltd., M/s. Bhagwari Detergent (Pvt.) Ltd., M/s. Monark Paints Industries, M/s. Maxwell Shop and Detergents and M/s. Bahati Rotoplast Pvt. Ltd. were situated in the vicinity of the factory of the opposite-party and all of them were granted eligibility certificate for six years on the assumption that their units were situated within the local limits of Tahsil-Dadari. Subsequently, it was found that exc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he case of the department that under the said Government Order remission could not have been granted or the remission was granted in excess or in violation of the said Government Order. 8.. It has next been submitted by Sri S.D. Singh, learned Standing Counsel, that the survey of the unit of the assessee was made on March 29, 1995 when the M.D. of the unit made a statement that from the date onwards tax has been realised and shall be deposited. The dealer did not realise the tax after making statement dated March 29, 1995. The remission has been granted on one of the grounds that the dealer has not realised tax, therefore, tax was not liable to be deposited. It is submitted that if the dealer has not realised the tax on account of his own fault then the dealer cannot be entitled to remission on this ground. It would appear from the material on record that when the dealer made the statement the eligibility certificate was still operative. The statement was given by the M.D. that the unit shall realise the tax in accordance with law. There is substance in the submission of Sri Bharat Ji Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the dealer, that since the eligibility certifica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
