TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 1656X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of law - the question is decided in favor of revisionist. Revision allowed. - Trade Tax Revision No. 148 -149 of 2004 - - - Dated:- 16-2-2018 - Hon'ble Rajan Roy, J. For the Applicant : P. Agarwal For the Opposite Party : C.S.C ORDER Heard. In both the revisions a common judgment of the Trade Tax Tribunal pertaining to the assessment-year 1994-95 and 1995-96 are under challenge, therefore, they are being decided by this Court accordingly by a common judgment. For reference, Trade Tax Revision No.148 of 2004, M/S Bajaj Auto Ltd. v. Commissioner Of Trade Tax. These revisions have already been admitted. Though the questions were not formulated by the Court, they were formulated by the revisionist in the rev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... U.P. since at the time of sale the tax was paid as such the deemed sale of same transaction cannot be subjected to tax ? Sri Pradeep Agarwal, learned counsel for the revisionist as also Sri Rohit Nandan Shukla, learned counsel for the State have agreed to argue the matter on the aforesaid questions of law. An interim order was passed by the Court in both the petitions, the operative portion of which reads as under: As the revisionist has already deposited the entire amount of tax, i.e. ₹ 21 lacs, which was done under protest as has been submitted by the learned counsel for the Revisionist and further since a debatable legal issue is involved that lease of the machine in question was not covered by the definition of '& ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rejected cursorily. Thirdly, the contention is that in fact the leased equipment i.e. the energy device (Turbine) which was purchased by the revisionist from Tata Chemicals and given to it for use under a lease-agreement as aforesaid, did not qualify as goods within the meaning of the term as defined in section 2(D) of the Trade Tax Act 1948, therefore, the same could not be subjected to tax even under section 3-F. Furthermore, assuming that section 3-F was applicable, the revisionist was entitled to the benefit of sub-section (2) Clause (i) thereof, but this aspect of the matter has also not been considered. In response, Sri Rohit Nandan Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the State, on being confronted as to the non-consideration o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e could not give any satisfactory reply. The contention nos. 1 and 3 relating to situs of sale and the equipment in question not falling with the meaning of definition of ''goods' does not appear to have been raised before the Tribunal, however, contention no.2 was specifically raised, but has not been considered. In view of the above discussion the Court is of the view that the second appeal of the revisionist is required to be re-considered by the Tribunal keeping in mind the issues involved on merits as noticed hereinabove, as it has not done so as per the requirements of law. For these reasons the question No.1 framed hereinabove alone is required to be answered by this Court, which is answered accordingly in favour of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
