9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (2) TMI 1330X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Standing Counsel, for the respondent These are two revisions against the order of the Tribunal dated January 2, 2004 for the assessment year 2000-01 both under the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 as well as under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The applicant established a unit for the manufacturing of rims and steel wheels. It appears that the unit has undergone expansion under the expansion scheme un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the period July 6, 2000 to November 8, 2000, the applicant has claimed 100 per cent exemption on the turnover as per the notification. The assessing authority has allowed 100 per cent exemption from tax on the turnover during the aforesaid period. There is no dispute in this regard. During the course of assessment proceeding, the applicant claimed the refund of the excess deposit of tax at ͅ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enefit of the same should be allowed in the subsequent years. Sri B.K. Pandey, learned standing counsel submitted that since the applicant has realized the tax from the customers and deposited the same, the applicant is not entitled for the refund under section 29A of the Act. Under section 29A(3) of the Act, the refund can only be granted to the parties from whom the tax has been realized in acc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In the assessment order the applicant itself claimed 100 per cent exemption on the turnover for the period July 6, 2000 to November 8, 2000 both under the U.P. Trade Tax Act as well as under the Central Sales Tax Act and the same have been allowed by the assessing authority in accordance with notification. There is no provision under the Act to give adjustment of the excess tax paid with the mone ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
