9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (8) TMI 849X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sued form IIIB. The said form IIIB authorises exemption from or concessional rate of tax. The said contention has not been accepted by all the three authorities below. They have found that there is no firm registered with the Department known as Suman Kutir Udyog. In the memo of revision, the following questions of law have been sought to be raised: (i) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Sales Tax Tribunal was justified in law in confirming the orders passed by the courts below? (ii) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Sales Tax Tribunal was legally justified in law in fixing the liability of tax upon the applicant against form IIIB duly issued by the purchasing dealer? (iii) Whether, on the fac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m. The alleged recognition certificate was never issued by the Department to Suman Kutir Udyog. The said purchasing dealer is also not registered with the Department. The form IIIB bearing No. 173232 was issued by the Sales Tax Officer to Aligarh Ispat Udyog but not to Suman Kutir Udyog. The findings recorded by the Tribunal are findings of fact, submits the learned standing counsel. Considered the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The matter was heard on various occasions. This court had earlier directed the learned standing counsel to produce the record pertaining to issuance of form IIIB bearing No. 173232. An affidavit has been filed by Shri Uday Bhan Yadav, Assistant Commissioner, S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty. The findings recorded by the Tribunal are basically findings of fat and they do no suffer from any error of law. The apex court in Rashtriya Audyogik Sansthan v. Commissioner of Trade Tax, U.P. [2007] 6 VST 763 (SC); [2007] UPTC 547, Commissioner of Sales Tax, U .P. v. Mohan Brickfield [2006] 148 STC 638 (SC); [2007] 1 UPTC 1 (SC) and Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Kumaon Tractors Motors [2002] 9 SCC 379 has held that section 11 of the Trade Tax Act confers a limited jurisdiction to interfere with the order of the Tribunal only on the question of laws, that too the said question of law is required to be precisely framed or formulated. The learned counsel for the dealer-applicant could not point out any illegality or perversity in the fin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
