TMI Blog2005 (5) TMI 642X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Appellate Authority accepted those certificates and remanded back the matter to the Assessing Authority with the direction to examine the genuineness of the certificates and pass assessment order afresh Assessing Authority passed fresh assessment order allowed the exemption on the turnover of ₹ 82,88,645.36 to Canteen Stores Department on the basis of certificates. Assessing Authority issued notice under Section 22 of the Act with the view to levy tax on the turnover of ₹ 82,88,645.36p. made to Canteen Stores Department on the ground that the turnover of Canteen Stores Department was not generally exempted under the U.P. Trade Tax Act and it was exempted vide notification No. 7037, dated 31st January, 1985 on fulfillment of certain conditions and therefore, it was not liable to be exempted under Section 8 (2-A) of the Central Sales Tax Act in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax, Jammu and Kashmir and others v. Fine Chemicals Ltd. and other reported in 1995 U.P.T.C. 609 (SC) : 96 S.T.C. 355. Applicant filed reply to the notice which has not been accepted by the Assessing Authority and vide order dated 30th August, 1995 passed o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .T.C. 472. Me further submitted that under Section 22 of the Act only mistake apparent on the face of record can be rectified and in cases where the issue involved debate and an investigation of fact and two opinions are possible such mistake cannot be rectified under Section 22 of the Act. 5. Learned Standing Counsel submitted that vide order dated 30th March, 1994, Appellate Authority has only remanded back the case to the Assessing Authority to pass assessment order afresh with the direction to examine the certificates. He submitted that the Appellate Authority has not allowed the exemption and, therefore, it is wrong to say that so far as claim of exemption on the sale to Military Canteens/Canteen Stores Department for ₹ 82,88,645.36p is concerned, order of the Assessing Authority has been merged in the appellate order. He further submitted that in pursuance of the appellate order, Assessing Authority has passed fresh order and, therefore, such order could be rectified under Section 22 of the Act. He submitted that the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of M.R. Soap (Private) Ltd., Ghaziabad v. Assistant Commissioner (Assessment), Sales Tax, Modin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on No. ST-II-7037/ X-7(23)/83-U.P. Act-XV-48-Order-85, dated 31st January, 1985 sales to or purchases and sales by Canteen Stores Department/Military Canteens were exempt on the condition that it was certified by (a) an officer not below the rank of Commanding Officer or, as the case may be (b) the Executive Director, or an officer not below the rank of Deputy Director duly authorised by him, that the goods are meant for being sold to members of the Armed Forces of India/other defence establishements/Ex-Servicemen. 9. Section 8 (2-A) of the Central Sales Tax Act reads as follows: 8. Rates of tax on sales in the course of inter-State Trade or commerce. - (2-A) notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1-A) of Section 6 or sub-section (1) or clause (b) of sub-section (2) of this section, the tax payable under this Act by a dealer on the turnover in so far as the turnover or any part thereof relates to the sale of any goods, the sale or, as the case may be, the purchase-' of which is, under the sales tax law of the appropriate State exempt from tax generally or subject to tax generally at a rate which is lower than four percent, (whether called a tax or fee or b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the date of payment of duty. Mo doubt the aforesaid circular is withdrawn by circular dated 14th August, 1997. Still, however, at the relevant time neither can the impugned order passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals) be said to be in any way illegal or erroneous nor was it open to the Department of challenge the said order. 14. In the case of Paper Products Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise reported in (1999) 7 S.C.C. 84, Apex Court has held as follows: It is clear from the abovesaid pronouncements of this Court that apart from the fact that the circulars issued by the Board are binding on the Department, the Department is precluded from challenging the correctness of the said circulars even on the ground of the same being inconsistent with the statutory provision. The ratio of the judgment of this Court further precludes the right of the Department to file an appeal against the correctness of the binding nature of the circulars. Therefore, it is clear that so far as the Department is concerned, whatever action it has to take, the same will have to be consistent with the circular which is in force at the relevant point of time. As Stated above, it is an a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
