9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (4) TMI 359X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tax from the petitioner pursuant to the impugned order dated 29.05.2024. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a public limited company and is engaged in the business of manufacture of Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL). He further submits that for the Financial Year 2005-06, the petitioner was granted licence in Form FL - 1, Form FL-1A and Form FL-3 for the wholesale vending of foreign liquor, other than denatured spirit, in the District - Shahjahanpur. Vide order dated 02.02.2006, the Deputy Commissioner (Assessment-II), Shahjahanpur issued provisional assessment order under the U.P. Entry Tax Act imposing entry tax on IMFL for the month of April, 2005 and May, 2006. Against the aforesaid assessment order, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... yagraj. He further submits that the Uttar Pradesh Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 2000 was declared ultra vires by this Court in the case of ITC Vs. State of U.P. and IOC Vs. State of U.P. The matter was traveled upto the Apex Court and in the meantime, the State of U.P. introduced Uttar Pradesh Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Area Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Entry Tax Act of 2007') with retrospective effect. The validity of the Entry Tax Act of 2007 was affirmed by this Court. He further submits that in the schedule of Entry Tax Act, 2007, there is no mention of 'Indian Made Foreign Liquor', on which entry tax is charged. He further submits that the Entry Tax Act, 2007 was introduced with retrospective effect wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Apex Court in Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. M/s Ratan Melting & Wire Industries [2008 (13) SCC 1]m, which has been followed in the case of Commissioner of Central Tax Vs. M/s Gurukripa Resins Private Limited [AIR OnLine 2011 SC 596. 10. Per contra, learned ACSC supports the impugned orders and submits that in the impugned order itself, the recovery has been deferred in view of the circular dated 18.10.2006 and therefore, the petitioner cannot be aggrieved as no recovery is being pressed against it. He further submits that the petitioner, being a manufacturer and there is a specific embargo upon the manufacturer not to deliver the goods to the purchaser unless and until the entry tax is paid and once the purchaser failed to pay the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... #2381;त अवधि के जमा किये गये प्रवेश कर की वापसी नहीं होगी। " 13. On perusal of the aforesaid circular, it specifically states that no entry can be realized from the manufacturer if the same has not been realized for the period from 01.04.2005 to 29.05.2005 and if realized and the same is deposited, the same may not be refunded. 14. The record shows that in the assessment order, a specific finding has been recorded in favour of the petitioner, which reads as under:- "उपरो& ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itioner that on perusal of the records and the bill, shows that the petitioner has not realized any entry tax from its customers, while making the sale. Once a finding of fact in favour of the petitioner has been recorded, no entry tax can be realized from the petitioner in view of the circular dated 18.10.2006, which still holds water. 16. The circulars are binding on the authorities as has been held by the Apex Court in the case of M/s Ratan Melting & Wire Industrie (supra) and M/s Gurukripa Resins Private Limited (supra). 17. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 29.05.2024 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Grade - 2, (Appeals-1), State Tax, Bareilly is modified to the extent that no recovery of entry tax for the period f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
