KAJARIA CERAMICS LIMITED Vs. TRADE TAX TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two revisions arise out of the order passed by the Full Bench of the Trade Tax Tribunal, Lucknow in Second Appeal No. 73 of 1996 (Kajaria Ceramics Ltd. v. Divisional Level Committee). The appeal was partly allowed and partly dismissed by the Tribunal. Revision No. 700 of 1997 has been filed by the assesses being aggrieved by part dismissal of the appeal. Revision No. 53(LX.of 1997 has been filed by the Commissioner of Trade Tax, U.P., Lucknow against the order of partly allowing the appeal.

(2.) AFTER Revision No. 700 of 1997 was heard by the court, it was pointed out by Sri B.K. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel, that the department has also filed a revision against the impugned order before the Lucknow Bench of this Court and both the revisions deserve to be decided by common judgment. The Commissioner of Trade Tax, U.P., Lucknow moved Civil Misc. Application No. 68823 of 1999 before the honourable Chief Justice with a prayer that the honourable Chief Justice be pleased to direct that Revision No. 700 of 1997 (Kajaria Ceramics Ltd. v. Trade Tax Tribunal) pending in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and Trade Tax Revision No. 53(L) of 1997 (Commissioner of Trade Tax v. Kajaria Ceramics Ltd.) pending before the Lucknow Bench of this Court may be heard and decided together. Honourable the Chief Justice passed the following order on September 29, 1999 on the said application : 'Heard learned counsel for the parties. The record pertaining to the Trade Tax Revision No. 53(L) of 1997 pending before Lucknow Bench be summoned to this Court immediately and the same be placed before honourable P.K. Jain, J., for hearing. Dated 29 -9 -99 Sd/ - N.K. Mitra.' That is how Trade Tax Revision No. 53(L) of 1997 came up for hearing before this Court.

(3.) AGGRIEVED by the order passed by the Divisional Level Committee, the dealer filed appeal before the Trade Tax Tribunal, Lucknow. The Trade Tax Tribunal by its judgment and order dated April 10, 1997 partly allowed the appeal accepting the claim of the dealer in respect of additional fixed capital investment to the tune of Rs. 54,48,34,341.70 paise, it rejected the claim of the dealer with regard to Rs. 16,21,54,852 the original fixed capital investment as on August 12, 1988. By such rejection of claim, the dealer felt aggrieved and filed Trade Tax Revision No. 700 of 1997.