9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (12) TMI 466X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... les/Trade Tax Revision No. 787 of 2004 - - - Dated:- 13-12-2011 - BHARATI SAPRU, J. For the Appellant : Piyush Agarwal and Bharat Ji Agarwal For the Respondent : The C.S.C. BHARATI SAFRU J.- The present revision has been filed by the assessee against an order of the Tribunal dated March 15, 2004 for the assessment year 1998-99 (Central) by which the Tribunal has imposed an amount of ₹ 3,92,000 as Central sales tax on the assessee. The questions of law sought to be answered are as under: (1) Whether only can body having been fabricated by Sahibabad unit and the same alone having been transferred from Sahibabad to Murthal where rest of manufacturing unit of tin container was completed and thereafter it was sold b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... position that neither the assessing authority nor the appellate authority can go beyond the question of the controversy is raised in the show-cause notice? (5) Whether in view of the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in the case of Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes [1970] 26 STC 354 (SC) (last two paragraphs) even if stock transfer were to be treated as inter-State sale, it was incumbent upon the assessing authority as well as the Tribunal to examine each and every point instead of going in casual manner? (6) Whether in any view of the matter the order passed by the assessing authority as well as the Tribunal treating the stock transfer of semi-fabricated body/part of tin conta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee filed an appeal. The appeal too was dismissed by an order dated February 2, 2000. The assessee thereafter filed a second appeal under section 10 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 which too has been dismissed. The learned counsel for the assessee has vehemently argued that even though the assessee had filed written argument stating its case with regard to semi-finished goods, the Tribunal has not considered the same and has not examined each and every transaction. The learned counsel for the assessee has argued that each and every transaction should have been examined to see whether or not the goods which were stock transfer were finished goods or not? In reply to the argument made by the learned counsel for the assessee, Sri B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
