2013 (3) TMI 577

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ounsel for the revisionist. Sri B.K. Pandey, has appeared for the assessee. All these revisions pertain to the same assessee. They are based upon similar facts and purports to raise a common question of law as to whether the Tribunal is justified in refunding the amount which was not deposited by the dealer himself but by his agent with the return in view of section 42(4) of the U.P. Value A .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ection 42 (4) (d) of the Act, he is not entitle to the refund of the amount. The submission is apparently misconceived inasmuch as the tax has been deposited on behalf of the assessee and in view of the exemption granted under section 4A of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948, the assessee is entitle to refund the same. The revenue cannot withhold the amount of tax paid/deposited on behalf of the asse .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... paid or deposited. It is therefore, immaterial as whether the tax has been paid by the assessee himself or by his agent. Therefore, if the net tax has been deposited on behalf of the industrial unit, that has been granted exemption under the U.P. Trade Tax Act or the Central Sales Tax Act, the refund of the same would be admissible. In view of the plain language used in the aforesaid provision .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X