LAWS(ALL)-2006-11-273

COMMISSIONER, TRADE TAX Vs. HIGLO INDUSTRIES

Decided On November 21, 2006
COMMISSIONER, TRADE TAX Appellant
V/S
Higlo Industries Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE three revisions under Section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Act') are directed against the order of the Tribunal dated August 6, 1999 for the assessment years 1990 -91, 1991 -92 and 1992 -93, by which the Tribunal has deleted the amount of interest under Section 8(1) of the Act.

(2.) IT appears that dealer/opposite party (hereinafter referred to as, 'the dealer') had established a new unit for the manufacturing of LPG gas stove and pressure regulator and applied for exemption under Section 4A of the Act on the turnover of the manufactured goods. The exemption application was rejected by the Divisional Level Committee on August 6, 1991. Against the said order dealer filed appeal before the Tribunal and same has also been dismissed and against the order of the Tribunal, dealer filed Trade Tax Revision No. 104 of 1998 before this Court, which is still pending before the Lucknow Bench of this Court. The assessing authority on account of the rejection of claim of exemption application under Section 4A of the Act levied the tax for the assessment years in dispute and also demanded the interest under Section 8(1) of the Act treating the amount of tax assessed as admitted tax. The dealer filed appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), which were rejected. The dealer further filed three appeals before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by the impugned order, allowed the appeals and deleted the interest under Section 8(1) of the Act. The Tribunal held that the dealer was bonafidely disputing the liability of tax, inasmuch as it applied for exemption under Section 4A of the Act being a new unit. The Tribunal held that the matter relating to the exemption under Section 4A of the Act is still pending in revision before the Lucknow Bench of this Court and there is nothing to show that the exemption under Section 4A of the Act was not claimed bonafidely. I do not find any error in the order of the Tribunal.

(3.) IN the result, all the three revisions fail and are accordingly, dismissed.