9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (12) TMI 489X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on is connected to the other, that cannot be the case because every clause refers to specify benefits under specific sections and gives specific relief. The case of the assessee is covered under clause (iii) of the said notification, as his case was a payment of rebate being allowed to the full extent at the rate of 5%. This was allowed to him for having paid entry tax at the rate of 5%. Because the assessee had paid entry tax at the rate of 5% he was given the benefit of not having to pay the State Development Tax. The other clauses are not connected with the rebate factor at all. Thus claim made by the assessee under Section 3-H (4) (d) should have been allowed. The order of the Tribunal is,therefore, set aside. In favour of the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w in upholding the order of the authorities below requiring all the four sub clauses of the notification to be fulfilled together? 3.Whether the Assessing Authority having held that the kraft paper was sold to the manufacturer holding the recognition certificate under section 4-B of U.P. Trade Tax Act and the time was also given for furnishing the Form III-B no State Development Tax was payable by the applicant in view of sub clause (i) of notification no.1307 dated 28.4.2005 and the tribunal has committed an error of law in upholding the levy of State Development Tax on the ground that after each clauses (i) to (iv) the word or has not been used? 4.Whether in view of section 3-H (4)(d) of U.P. Trade Tax Act it is only the goods alo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o notifications the State of U.P. also issued a notification on 7.3.2005 under Section 5 of the U.P.Trade Tax Act providing rebate to the extent of amount of tax paid under the U.P. Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 2000. Thus, the assessing authority also recorded a finding that the assessee had deposited the entire entry tax at the full rate but did not admit any liability for payment of State Development Tax under Section 3-H of the U.P. Trade Tax Act. Thus, it was the assessee's case that the assessee was not liable to pay any State Development Tax under Section 3-H of the Act especially in view of the notification dated 28.4.2005 issued by the State Government. The notification dated 28.4.2005 is quoted here-in-below :- KA.NI.-2-130 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd can stand on its own. The Tribunal has wrongly come to the conclusion that one condition is connected to the other, that cannot be the case because every clause refers to specify benefits under specific sections and gives specific relief. The case of the assessee is covered under clause (iii) of the said notification, as his case was a payment of rebate being allowed to the full extent at the rate of 5%. This was allowed to him for having paid entry tax at the rate of 5%. Because the assessee had paid entry tax at the rate of 5% he was given the benefit of not having to pay the State Development Tax. The other clauses are not connected with the rebate factor at all. Thus, in view of the above, I am of the opinion that the Tribunal has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
