JAI DURGE JEWELLERS Vs. COMMISSIONER, TRADE TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two revisions were heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment as they are directed against a common order dated September 16, 2000 passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal. The dispute relates to the assessment years 1994 -95 and 1995 -96. The arguments were advanced with reference to revision No. 1474 of 2000 relevant to the assessment year 1994 -95, hence the facts from the said file are noticed. The learned Counsel for the parties agreed that identical controversy is involved in the connected revision No. 1475 of 2000 for the subsequent assessment year.

(2.) IN the memo of revision although 11 questions of law have been sought to be raised but Shri Suyash Agrawal, learned Counsel appearing for the applicant submits that he has confined his argument with regard to the following two questions of law only:

(3.) SO far as the second controversy is concerned, I find some force therein. A perusal of the assessment order as well as the order of first appellate authority would show that no additional tax was levied on the sale of gold ornaments and on the purchase of bullion. The Tribunal for the first time while hearing the appeals levied additional tax as assessed turnover exceeds Rs. 10 lakhs. It is relevant to notice here that the Commissioner of Trade Tax had also filed appeals against the order of the first appellate authority. A copy of the memo of the second appeal filed by the Commissioner has been annexed along with the revision. In the said memo of the appeal no such ground was raised by the Commissioner that the authorities below committed mistake in not levying additional tax at the rate of one per cent. The controversy involved is not res integra and has been set at rest by a judgment of this Court in G.D. Steels & Gases Private Limited v. Commissioner of Trade Tax, [1999] 115 STC 491 (All) :, [1995] UPTC 35. It has been held that under Section 10 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act the Commissioner cannot challenge the assessment order. The subject -matter of the appeal before the Tribunal was the relief which was granted by the first appellate authority and not beyond it. As already noticed herein above, the additional tax was not levied even by the assessing officer.