JALPAC INDIA LTD Vs. COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Bharat Ji Agrawal, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Piyush Agrawal, Advocate on behalf of the assessee and Standing Counsel on behalf of the department.

(2.) Assessee before this Court seeks quashing of the order of the Commercial Tax Tribunal dated 26.02.2013 passed in Appeal No. 559 of 2011 along with connected appeals. Under the order impugned the Tribunal has held that the assessee was not entitled to rebate as claimed on the interstate sale of goods effected from NOIDA Depot of assessee within the State of U.P. For the purpose the Tribunal has recorded that under the notification dated 23.11.2000 issued in exercise of powers under Section 5 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act. It has been recorded that the notification dated 23.11.2000, which has been relied upon in support of his case by the assessee, issued in exercise of powers under Section 5 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act permits rebate in the tax only in respect of within state sales and even otherwise under the State Act there could not be an exemption in the matter of tax to be levied under the Central Sales Tax Act. It has further been held that the judgment of the Apex Court relied upon by the assessee in the case of Commissioner of Commercial Tax, Ranchi and another vs. Swarn Rekha Cokes and Coals Pvt. Ltd. and others, 2004 136 STC 57 has no applicability. Accordingly, the second appeals filed by the assessee have been dismissed.

(3.) Challenging the order so passed by the Tribunal Sri Bharat Ji Agrawal, Senior Advocate submitted before this Court that since under notification dated 23.11.2000 issued in exercise of powers under Section 5 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act rebate has been provided in the matter of sales effected within the State of U.P. from the NOIDA depot qua the goods manufactured by the assessee from its unit situate in Uttarakhand the same rebate would become applicable in respect of interstate sales also effected from the NOIDA depot situate within the State of U.P. in view of Section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act. Since the said aspect of the matter has been completely ignored by the Tribunal, the order impugned cannot be legally sustained.