9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (5) TMI 1515X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... osite party. 3. Learned ACSC for the revisionist submits that the issue in hand is squarely covered with the decision of this Court passed in a bunch of cases leading Sales/ Trade Tax Revision No. 10 of 2025 (The Commissioner, Commercial Tax, UP Vs. S/S Janki Industries Nai Basti, Bareilly), Neutral Citation No. 2025: AHC:42271. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party submits that the judgement passed in the case of S/S Janki Industries (supra) requires reconsideration as the same is based upon the judgement passed by this Court in the case of M/s Farooq Agencies Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Tax (Sales / Trade Tax Revision No. 397/2013 decided on 16.7.2013). He submits that the facts of M/s Farooq Agencies (supra) is not a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d Sangeeta Singh (supra) are not applicable in the facts of the present case. 8. He further submits that the judgement cited by the counsel for the opposite party in the case of R. Hanumathappa (supra) is related to Mysore Income Tax Act and the counsel for the opposite party has failed to show that the provisions of Mysore Income Tax Act are analogous to the VAT Act and GST Act. In the event, the provisions are not analogous, the judgement is of no aid to the opposite party. 9. He further submits that once the opposite party has filed TRANS From 1, it had intention to avail the ITC but since the goods in question are exempted under the GST Act, has reversed the same by filing Form GST TRAN -2, therefore, the impugned order has been passe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed goods are not re-sold, the input tax credit cannot be accorded to the registered dealer as per Section 13. On the said premise, this Court has passed the order in favour of the Revenue and against the registered dealer in the case of S/S Janki Industries (supra). 13. The case in hand, it is admitted by the opposite party that there was a closing stock as on 30.6.2020, which shows that the goods purchased by the opposite party, have not been re-sold. Input tax credit availed with the dealer was transferred under the GST Act in Form GST TRAN -1. It is also not in dispute that the opposite party realises that he cannot claim the input tax credit as available to him then he filed Form GST TRAN -2 reversing the same input tax. Section 13 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the present case. 16. Further, the opposite party has tried to impress upon the Court that the judgement passed in the case of Farooq Agencies (supra) should be treated as casus omissus as one more condition has been imposed under Section 18 of UP Trade Tax Act, 1948. In support of his submission, counsel for the opposite party has relied upon two judgement of Apex Court in the cases of Govind Singh (supra) and Sangeeta Singh (supra). On close scrutiny of Section 18 of UP Trade Tax Act, shows that no new condition has been imposed but the Court has held that on introduction of new tax regime i.e. UP VAT Act, the erstwhile regime come to an end. When the new tax regime come into place, the opposite party discontinued its business under t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
