2005 (8) TMI 639

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... organisation Act, 2000, for its disposal. The revision, preferred under section 11(1) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948, is directed against order/award dated March 4, 1992, passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal, Bareilly, Camp, Haldwani. The following question of law is involved in this revision: Whether the Sales Tax Tribunal was legally justified in holding that rice husk and paddy husk a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... further been held that the assessing officer has wrongly treated purchase of paddy husk as that of rice husk. Learned counsel for the Revenue referred to the principle of law laid down in Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. v. Naveen Traders [1975] 36 STC 440 (All); [1973] UPTC 215 and argued that paddy husk and rice husk are the same item and as such the learned Tribunal has erred in law in holdi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... using it as fuel in their boiler. Under Notification No. 3712 dated June 5, 1985, the tax has been levied on the purchase of rice husk . In Commissioner of Trade Tax v. U.P. Straw and Agro Product Ltd. [2004] UPTC 1125, it has been held that rice husk and paddy husk are two different commodities. Under the aforesaid notifications, what is taxable is purchase of rice husk and not paddy husk. Expla .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X