9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 201X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me does not itself specify the rate of compounding fee to be 22% of the royalty amount for the entire period during which such scheme remained in force. It only provided, in the event of the applicant being admitted to that scheme of compounding, he may remain compelled to such benefit for all subsequent periods during which the scheme may remained in force. As to the amount of compounding fee to be calculated at the percentage rate of royalty, the State did not commit to maintain @ 22%. In fact, by virtue of the proviso to Section 7-D of the Act, the State retained the power to vary that rate. The Tribunal has not committed any error in rejecting the claim made by the applicant. Unless there was an enabling statutory provision or other ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er, it has been submitted, the applicant had made a composite application to avail the benefit of compounding under Section 7-D of The U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), for A.Y.s 2003-04 onwards. Merely because the assessing authority passed separate orders for the A.Y.s 2003-04, 2004-05 and 2005-06, he was not willfully entitled to enhance the rate of compounding fee @ 25% for the A.Y. 2004-05. Here, reference has been made to the compounding application dated 6.6.2003 moved by the applicant, disclosing the eligibility period (i) 23.4.2003 to 22.4.2004 disclosing royalty amount Rs. 4,80,000/-; (ii) 23.4.2004 to 22.4.2005 disclosing royalty amount Rs. 48,18,000/- and; (iii) 23.4.2005 to 22.4.2006 disclosing roya ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the royalty amount for the entire period during which such scheme remained in force. It only provided, in the event of the applicant being admitted to that scheme of compounding, he may remain compelled to such benefit for all subsequent periods during which the scheme may remained in force. As to the amount of compounding fee to be calculated at the percentage rate of royalty, the State did not commit to maintain @ 22%. In fact, by virtue of the proviso to Section 7-D of the Act, the State retained the power to vary that rate. 8. For both reasons, the Tribunal has not committed any error in rejecting the claim made by the applicant. Unless there was an enabling statutory provision or other law or unless there was a specific clause i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
