9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (5) TMI 884X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... more than six months at a stretch on the ground that the applicant has filed no returns under misconception of law? Whether, in any view of the matter the order passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal is illegal and is liable to be set aside? Held that:- The contentions of the learned counsel for the assessee that the order of the Tribunal has been passed by ignoring material evidence have substance. The contentions as raised by the learned counsel for the assessee are, therefore, accepted by this court. The matter is remanded to the Tribunal for a fresh consideration. The consideration will be made by the Tribunal on the basis of material, which is already there on record before the Tribunal as well as the entire record, which has been pla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tax Tribunal is illegal and is liable to be set aside? The facts of the case are that the applicant established a new unit for the manufacture of wooden and steel furnishers and was registered as smallscale industry with the Director of Industries. The applicant, therefore, made an application under section 4A of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 for grant of certificate. At the time when the applicant made an application under section 4A, the applicant had itself disclosed the total investment made for the factory of a sum of Rs. 4,46,000. The Divisional Level Committee, therefore, rejected the application of the applicant on two grounds: firstly, the investment made by the applicant being more than rupees three lakhs, he was not entitled t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ive evidence to establish its case. The Divisional Level Committee on remand also rejected the case of the assessee by its order dated July 26, 1997 and, therefore, the assessee filed an appeal against the aforesaid order. The Trade Tax Tribunal by its order dated September 23, 1999 has dismissed the appeal of the applicant. The learned counsel for the assessee has argued that there are two obvious mistakes, which have been made by the Tribunal in this case and, thus, the Tribunal has erred in dismissing the appeal of the applicant on the ground that the investment of the unit was more than three lacs by ignoring material evidence that was produced by the assessee in the shape of the certificate of the architect which showed that the valuat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es and having perused the material on record as well as the order of the Tribunal it is clear that although the Tribunal has noted that after the assessee had filed the first valuation, the assessee sought to file the second valuation report made by an architect and although the same was noticed by the Tribunal in its order, the Tribunal has given no reason for rejecting it and has completely ignored it. The learned counsel for the assessee had argued that a saw mill or a furniture workshop, as the one which the assessee has made, does not require a large tract of land. He has argued that the earlier report included the entire tract of land of 15,418 square feet, which is not the requirement of saw mill whereas the factory of the asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
