9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (2) TMI 1098X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee. - 165 of 2002 - - - Dated:- 17-2-2010 - BHARATI SAPRU , J. Ms. BHARATI SAPRU J. Heard learned counsel for the assessee and the learned standing counsel for the State. This revision has been filed by the assessee against the order of the Tribunal dated January 9, 2002 in proceedings initiated under section 4A(3) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948. The questions of law referred to are hereunder: (i) Whether in view of the law laid down by the honourable High Court in Mansarovar Bottling Company Limited v. Commissioner of Trade Tax [1999] 115 STC 530, the manner in which power under section 4A(3) of the Act has been exercised could be said to be valid and within competence? (ii) Whether all the material facts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act, which was granted to them on August 6, 1997 for a period of nine years from November 18, 1994 to November 17, 2003. The assessee initially applied for a certificate for the production of steel and ingots and later on diversified and started making billets also. The Commissioner, Trade Tax issued a notice under section 4A(3) on January 6, 1999 to cancel the eligibility certificate. The assessee filed a reply to the notice given by the Commissioner but the certificate was cancelled on January 29, 2001. Three reasons were assigned for cancellation of the certificates: (i) Old furnace was used in the factory in the shape of feeder till June 28, 1997. (ii) Billets manufactured under diversification scheme were used for product ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l for the assessee, learned standing counsel has not been able to show from any of the order that there are any findings of misuse of the eligibility certificate made by the assessee. The learned standing counsel has also considered that no appeal was filed by the Department under section 10(2) of the Act. The learned counsel for the assessee has relied upon a decision of this court in the case of Hotz Industries Ltd., G.B. Nagar v. Commissioner of Trade Tax, U.P., Lucknow [2010] 28 VST 482 (All); [2010] 1 DLJ 88, in which this court has relied on its earlier decisions of Mansarovar Bottling Company Limited v. Commissioner of Trade Tax [1999] 115 STC 530; [1999] UPTC 864 and Chetna Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Gorakhpur v. Commissioner of Trade ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
