2011 (2) TMI 1322

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Counsel for the respondent JUDGMENT Heard Sri Bharat Ji Agrawal, learned senior counsel appearing for the revisionist-applicant assisted by Sri Piyush Agarwal, advocate and the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent. The applicant is a private limited company and is registered under the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 as well as the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. For the assessment year .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... customers, the tax on the said amount cannot be treated as tax on the turnover and consequently, the same cannot be forfeited under section 29A of the Act since the same was refunded by the applicant. It is also alleged that the credit note executed by the applicant in favour of the customers was in fact, refund of tax to the customers and this material was placed before the assessing authority, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Officer, Allahabad reported in [1997] UPTC 763, wherein this court held that where any material is placed before the authority which may indicate that the dealer has refunded the amount directly to the purchaser, that material must be taken into account and the dealer should not be further made liable to deposit the amount again with the Department. Sri Agarwal submits that this aspect of the matt .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X