COMMISSIONER COMMERCIAL TAX Vs. GAURAV GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri A.C. Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel for the revisionist and Shri Naveen Chandra Gupta, learned counsel for the opposite party.

(2.) These revisions have been filed against the judgements and orders dtd. 4/3/2016 passed by the Commercial Tax Tribunal (Bench-I), Ghaziabad in Second Appeal Nos. 261, 259 and 260 of 2015 for the assessment year 2010-11, in which following common question of law has been framed:- "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Commercial Tax Tribunal was legally justified in holding that the opposite party is not a dealer and not liable for payment of tax under the provisions of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act?"

(3.) Learned Standing Counsel submits that it is admitted case between the parties that the opposite party has taken SLR on lease in the passenger train run by the Northern Railways for transporting/carrying goods of other dealer(s)/person(s) from the station of origin to the station of destination, on which the persons, whose goods are transported, paid the money for such transport. In other words, the opposite party was treated as Railway Container Contractor. Once this fact is admitted between the parties, the opposite party was treated as Railway Container Contractor, then the provisions as provided under the Act and the Rules were required to be fulfilled, i.e., the Railway Container Contractors were required to get themselves registered and follow the procedure for maintaining books of account, relevant forms, as prescribed therein, were required to be filled up and maintained, but the opposite party had, at no stage during the assessment or at the appellate stage, produced any document to discharge its liability. Once the dealer has failed to discharge its liability as provided under the Act, the Tribunal was not justified in accepting the version of the dealer and allowing the appeal by deleting heavy tax imposed upon the opposite party. He prays for allowing the revision.