TMI Blog2020 (3) TMI 250X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... terstate sale which was validly subject to the entry tax. The said transaction was shown to be interstate sale only with a view to avoid taxation in the State of U.P. and therefore imposed entry tax on the said transaction and levied penalty on the fact that the said transaction was deliberately and wrongly recorded as interstate sale - The said transaction is an interstate sale was not liable for being brought under the Entry Tax Act. The issue as to whether the transaction was an intrastate sale or interstate sale is no longer open for the determination. For the same transaction by means of the impugned order the Tribunal has upheld the findings recorded by the Assessing Authority without taking into consideration the fate of the trans ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upheld by this Hon'ble Court, and yet in the case of the revisionist the penalty has been imposed treating the sale to be within Uttar Pradesh? (2) Whether the learned Tribunal misdirected itself by taking an extraneous view that the sales were not appearing in the books of revisionist, which was never a case of Assessing Officer, and the books of the revisionist were already accepted and Final Assessment order for the year 2010-11 has already been passed before the penalty order? 4. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionist that revisionist is a Public Limited Company, having its registered office at Golagokaran Nath, District Lakhimpur U.P. and Corporate Office at Bajaj Hindustan Sugar Ltd. Vibhuti Kha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n was made for the assessment order treating the said transaction to be a intrastate sale and thereby levying entry tax and penalty on the aforesaid transaction. 6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the revisionist preferred a first appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Grade-II (Appeal) IV, Commercial Tax, Lucknow. The First Appellate Authority also reiterated and endorsed the findings recorded by the Assessing Authority that purchaser Firm did not have any existence at the place at which it was shown and also the fact that the sale consideration for the aforesaid transaction ultimately found its way to the Bank Account in Bareilly, and therefore, he rejected the First Appeal supporting the order passed by the Assessing Authority. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the Commercial Tax, Lucknow with regard to the purchaser (Ms. Shudhodhak Enterprises), the Commercial Tax Tribunal choose to ignore the same and return the finding infavour of the Revenue and therefore the said order is perverse and arbitrary and liable to be set-aside. 10. Mr. Rohit Nandan Shukla, learned counsel for the revenue, on the other hand supports the the order passed by the various authorities levying entry tax upon the revisionist, he submits that in examination of the facts of the case as considered by the assessing authority would clearly indicate that the purchaser was not found present at the place of his registered business and even the consideration for the said transaction found its way within the State of Bareilly a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... concluded that the said transaction culminated within the State and therefore entry tax was levied upon him on 11.04.2013. The said order was challenged by the First Appellate Authority i.e. Additional, Commissioner, Grade-I, Appeals, Commercial Tax, Bareilly by filing a First Appeal No. 450 of 2013, which was allowed on 30.05.2013. Whereby it was determined by the First Appellate Authority that the said transaction was infact interstate sale on which no entry tax was leviable under the Act. 14. The revenue being aggrieved by the order of the First Appellate Authority preferred second appeal before the Commercial Tax Tribunal, which was decided in favour of the purchaser M/s Shudhodhak Enterprises and subsequently revision was preferred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct they have committed manifest error, as the tax liability of the transaction was already ascertained by the authority under the Act. This fact was also brought on record and duly discussed in the order passed by the First Appellate Authority in the present case. 16. In light of the aforesaid discussion, the said transaction having been held to be an interstate sale was not liable for being brought under the Entry Tax Act. The proceedings in this regard has attained finality by means of the judgment of this Court in Sale/TTR No. 489 of 2014 decided on 27.10.2014 a different view cannot be taken with regard to the revisionist who are the seller for the same transaction. 17. In light of the above, the order dated 14.08.2018 passed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
