9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 476X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ence has been placed for this Court to come to any other finding in favour of the revisionist. Revision dismissed - decided against revisionist. - Trade Tax Revision No. - 115 of 2018 - - - Dated:- 3-2-2020 - Alok Mathur, J. For the Revisionist : Gaurav Shukla,Krishna Dutt Tripathi For the Opposite Party : C.S.C ORDER ALOK MATHUR, J. 1. Heard Sri K.D. Tripathi, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Sanjay Sareen, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. The revisionist has assailed the order of the Commercial Tax Tribunal dated 25.5.2018 whereby the second appeal preferred by the revisionist has been rejected and the order of first appellate authority dated 28.10.2015 has been uphe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said foodgrains, which are not covered under the PDS and, therefore, the benefit of Section 7 would not be applicable with regard to such transactions of the revisionist. It was also found that there was discrepancy in the Form-26 submitted by the revisionist and after regular enquiry giving an opportunity of hearing to the revisionist and assessment was made by the Assessing Officer on 4.4.2012. 6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the revisionist preferred the First Appeal before the Additional Commissioner Grade II (Appeal) III, Commercial Tax, Lucknow, U.P..The Additional Commissioner Grade II (Appeal) III, while considering the case of the revisionist noted that the revisionist is only disputing the rate of purchase of wheat and ric ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rity or even before the Commercial Tax Tribunal. 9. A perusal of the order of the Assessing Authority clearly indicates that he has considered this issue and he has held that the goods procured for the purpose of PDS are exempted from taxation but the revisionist could not show that transactions involved therein were for the purpose of PDS and has further been recorded by the Assessing Authority that the revisionist has himself collected tax in this regard and has admitted his liability to pay tax. This issue was never agitated by the revisionist either before the First Appellate Authority or before the Second Appellate Authority. It could not be shown that he has canvassed either before the First Appellate Authority or before the Second ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay v. Scindia Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. AIR 1961 SC 1633 in paragraph 31 of the reports has summed up the various situations in which a question of law may or may not arise from the order of the Tribunal as follows: 31. The result of the above discussion may thus be summed up: 1. When a question is raised before the Tribunal and is dealt with by it, it is clearly one arising out of its order. 2. When a question of law is raised before the Tribunal but the Tribunal fails to deal with it, it must be deemed to have been dealt with by it, and is therefore one arising out of its order. 3. When a question is not raised before the Tribunal but the Tribunal deals with it, that will ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
