COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAX Vs. IRFAN ALI, NEHRU VIHAR; ANSAR ALI, NEHRU VIHAR, MUSTAFABAD; MURTZA ALI KHAN, NEHRU VIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Despite service of notice upon the assessee, none has appeared. These three revisions have been taken up for hearing, and are being disposed of after hearing the learned Standing Counsel, and upon perusal of the materials brought on record.

(2.) The assessee herein is a Railway Container Contractor, who has been found to have not maintained adequate records, which may depict as to for whom the goods itself had been brought in State of Uttar Pradesh. The Assessing Authority, in such circumstances, has proceeded to treat the assessee as dealer, by virtue of Section 2(h)(ix) of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008. An appeal preferred by the assessee was rejected. However, the second appeal filed before the tribunal by the assessee has been allowed, primarily on the ground that there is no specific provision in the U.P. VAT Act or the Rules, containing any specific provision, which obligates the Contractor to maintain record in a particular manner, regarding the identity of consigner and consignee, and to submit such records before the authority. The tribunal has also placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in State of Haryana Vs. Sant Lal, 1993 91 STC 321. The tribunal has taken the view that the assessee being a Railway Contractor, its job was confined only to transport the goods from the railway station of origin to the destination station, and they could not have been held to be dealer. The revenue is aggrieved by such determination of the tribunal and has preferred the instant revision under Section 58 of the Act.

(3.) Sri B.K. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel has invited attention of the Court to Section 2(h)(ix) of the U.P. VAT Act, which reads as under:-