Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2021 (7) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (7) TMI 1346 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxStrict rule of interpretation - additional fixed capital investment of the 'industrial undertaking' as a whole has to be taken into account or item-wise additional fixed capital investment - joint diversification - benefit of clause (d) of Explanation (5) of the Section 4A of UPTT Act - Section 58 (1) of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act - Whether the Tribunal has wrongly relied upon Clause (d) of the above explanation (4) of Section 4A of UPTT Act to hold that the Applicant has himself separately shown the investment in refrigerator and monitor, therefore it cannot be considered jointly for the purpose of Section 4A? HELD THAT:- After perusal of record, the Court has opined in para 26 that in the first place, as a rule, it cannot be disputed that at the threshold i.e. to determine whether the assessee was eligible to exemption a strict rule of interpretation had to be enforced. However, undisputedly, the assessee did engage in diversification upon establishing manufacturing facility to manufacture refrigerators and PC monitors. No goods similar to those were being manufactured by it, earlier. Therefore, a purposive construction has to be made. Reliance had also been placed on para 11 and 12 of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX VERSUS INDUSTRIAL COAL ENTERPRISES [1999 (2) TMI 530 - SUPREME COURT]. The Court further observed that it also cannot be disputed that the burden to establish that the assesse had made a single diversification to manufacture refrigerators and PC monitors rested on the assessee. It was a special fact in the knowledge of the assessee. Therefore, the burden would remain on the assessee to prove the same and for the revenue authorities to rebut such evidence as the assesse may produce. Now at this stage it is not expected from this Court to take fresh appraisal of the evidences or fact findings recorded by the Tribunal, or submitted for consideration by the revenue/revisionist. The trade tax revision could not be dealt with and decided as an appeal by this Court as an appellate authority. If fact finding authority comes to certain conclusion honestly and bona fidely, the mere fact that Court may have a different perspective of that question, cannot be a ground to interfere with the finding even though another view may be possible. Considering the limited jurisdiction exercisable under the Act such a course is not available. It is apparent that the Tribunal arrived at finding of fact after adducing the evidence produced by the assessee and by the revenue that there was single diversification for carrying out the work to set up manufacturing unit for manufacture of refrigerators and monitors. In any set of circumstances, it cannot be said that the order passed by the Tribunal is in any way illegal or erroneous - This Court is of the considered opinion that if the last fact finding authority i.e. the Tribunal has recorded finding of fact, the same cannot be interfered with in the revision provided the finding is perverse or it based on consideration of irrelevant material or not consideration of relevant material. The Court does not find any infirmity or illegality in the finding recorded by the Tribunal. The revision fails and is accordingly dismissed.
|