9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (7) TMI 901X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l for the parties jointly agreed that the identical controversy is involved in these revisions relating to the applicability of section 15A(1)(r) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948. The dispute relates to the assessment years 1994-95 and 1995-96. The facts are not much in dispute. The dealer-opposite party carries on the business of refined oil, acid oil, etc. It imported coal from outside the State ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... form is illegal. In the memo of revision, the following questions of law have been sought to be raised: "I. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Trade Tax Tribunal is legally justified to set aside the penalty order8 relying upon the judgment in the case of Garga Pharma (P) Ltd., Lucknow v. Commissioner of Sales Tax [1980] ATJ 289 wherein it was clearly held that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the registration certificate. " Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record. Question No. 3 is taken up first. As jointly agreed, the controversy involved in the present revisions is no longer res integra and has been set at rest by the apex court in the case of sister concern of the dealer-opposite party in Vishwanath Jhunjhunwala v. State of Uttar Pradesh [2004] 135 STC 562 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld by the apex court. In view of the judgment of the apex court, referred to above, it cannot be said that the dealer-opposite party, while importing the goods against form XXXI, has contravened any of the provisions of the U.P. Trade Tax Act or the rules framed thereunder, if the coal is used for job-work. To put it differently, the dealer-opposite party has utilized the coal for the purposes of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
