9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 1002X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee-revisionist is stated to have carried on the business of Khandsari Unit. The Unit took a loan from the Allahabad Bank which was declared as a non performing asset and the Bank is also stated to have rejected the proposal for restructuring of the loan. Aggrieved the assessee filed a writ petition no. 5351 (S/S) of 2009 in which the High Court appointed a Receiver and thereafter granted liberty to the assessee to pay off the loan in instalments. In the meantime on 22.2.2011 the writ petition was dismissed for want of prosecution. The recall application was also rejected. The applicant's request for restoration of his property from the possession of the Receiver was also rejected. The Court observed that since the writ petition has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ial Tax Sitapur which were also decided ex-parte by order dated 25.3.2013 and the penalty of Rs. 24,07,680/- was upheld. Aggrieved by the order dated 25.3.2013 the assessee filed appeals before the Commercial Tax Tribunal which have also been rejected by the impugned order dated 27.11.2013. In the Trade Tax Revision No. 101 of 2014 it has also been stated by the revisionist that the assessee had deposited the admitted tax of Rs. 8,43,413 alongwith interest of Rs. 2,24,477/- on late deposit for the assessment year 2010-11 in the penalty proceedings under section 54(1)(1) of the Act, 2008. In the Trade Tax Revision No. 102 of 2014 in paragraphs 5 and 6 it has been stated that the assessee Unit had deposited admitted tax of Rs. 2,87,029/- alo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... others Vs. D.S.M. Group of Industries was dismissed by the Supreme Court. The learned counsel further submits that relying upon the judgement of this Court in the case of D.S. M. Groups of Industries (supra) and the subsequent dismissal of the SLP (C) No. 8845 of 2002 Stae of U.P. and other Vs. D.S.M. Group of Industries and another whereby the order of the High Court in the case of D.S.M. Group of Industries has been affirmed, this Court in SAF Yeast Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 2009 U.P.T.C. 219 also held that molasses is not taxable under the U.P. Trade Tax Act. Further submission of Shri Pradeep Agarwal is that interest on the amount of admitted tax had already been deposited by the assessee inspite of fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... kdhar, learned counsel for the State Revenue on the other hand, submitted that the orders cannot be said to be ex-parte as from the record it is established that the notices were adequately served upon the Unit. However, what is not clear is whether the notices were served upon the assessee or whether they were served upon the Receiver and what would be the effect, once the Unit had been taken over by the Receiver on 18.9.2009. These questions have not been decided by the Tribunal while justifying the imposition of penalty upon the assessee. The Tribunal has also not taken into consideration the question as to whether molasses would be taxable or not in view of the judgment of the Court in the case of SAF Yeast Company Pvt. Ltd. (supra) as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
