9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (10) TMI 585X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of 1998 and has confirmed the order of the Commissioner, Trade Tax dated March 23, 1998 by which the eligibility certificate granted to the revisionist under section 4A(2) has been cancelled by the authority under the provisions of section 4A(3) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as, "the Act"). The revisionist is a public limited company under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 and had established a new unit at C-4, Industrial Area, Sikanderabad, District Bulandshahar for the manufacture of television sets. This unit was established by the revisionist in view of the incentive scheme announced by the State Government for the grant of exemption from the payment of tax under section 4A of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948. Sinc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ificate on the ground of misuse. The order dated March 23, 1998 has been placed on record by the revisionist as annexure 1 to the paper book. The order dated March 23, 1998 records two grounds for the cancellation of the eligibility certificate. The first ground recorded is that the manufacturer was not in the production of television sets at some times. The second finding recorded for misuse is that because the revisionist was importing television sets from outside, it cannot be said that he was a manufacturer. Learned counsel for the revisionist Shri Bharatji Agrawal has argued that this order of cancellation does not record anywhere that the revisionist was not in production continuously for a period of six months as was stipulated in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r of the Commissioner under section 4A(3) and remanded the case to the Commissioner of Trade Tax for decision afresh after giving to the revisionist a proper opportunity of hearing. Thereafter, another order was passed on January 5, 1992 under section 4A(3) by which the eligibility certificate was cancelled. The revisionist again filed an appeal, which was allowed on August 21, 1995. Thereafter, another order was passed on March 23, 1998 under section 4A(3) cancelling the eligibility certificate on the ground of misuse. The order dated March 23, 1998 has been placed on record by the revisionist as annexure 1 to the paper book. The order dated March 23, 1998 records two grounds for the cancellation of the eligibility certificate. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot preclude it from indulging any trading activity and, therefore, the mere fact that the revisionist had imported T.V. sets from outside, would not result in the misuse of the eligibility certificate unless there was a clear allegation that the exemption had been availed by the revisionist on the import of these television sets. In reply to the argument of learned counsel for the revisionist, learned Standing Counsel Shri B.K. Pandey has argued that in fact, the revisionist was not engaged in the production of T. V. sets at all because the order of cancellation records that the production manager of the company Shri Ajit Kumar admitted that there was no production on August 1, 1984 and secondly, on the date of service, which was September ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bunal to come to the conclusion that the revisionist has misused the eligibility certificate by making imports of T.V. sets. In effect, learned counsel has argued that in so far as the first finding of the order of cancellation is concerned, there could be no dispute about it because even the Tribunal has accepted that the revisionist was in production and has not closed its production for a continuous period of six months. On the second finding, learned counsel has argued that mere import of T.V. sets did not mean that the revisionist was indulging in misuse of its eligibility certificate because there is no allegation, whatsoever, either in the order of cancellation of the eligibility certificate or in the order of the Tribunal that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s on the T.V. sets, which were imported by him from outside. Such being the case, I come to the conclusion that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is not justified. The Tribunal has not returned any finding of clear misuse against the revisionist in order to withdraw or cancel the eligibility certificate granted to him. In the absence of any such finding that the revisionist had availed exemptions from tax on the T.V. sets that had been imported, it was not justified on the part of the Tribunal to cancel the eligibility certificate granted to the dealer. The impugned order fails to record any reason that would justify the cancellation of the eligibility certificate. The order of the Tribunal dated December 26, 2002 is hereby set as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
