COMMISSIONER SALES TAX Vs. BAROLIA TEA TRADING CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Sanjeev Shankdhar, learned counsel for the revisionist. None is present on behalf of the opposite-party. The brief facts of the case are that M/s Barolia Tea Trading Company was engaged in the work of importing tea leaves from the gardens and after blending and sorting, sells in the market. For this purpose, the assessee has established a new unit in Kanpur and applied for Eligibility Certificate under Section 4-A. The said certificate was granted vide office letter dated 20.12.1983 for a period of five years w.e.f. 8.1.1983. Later, it was found by the department that the capital investment was less than Rs. 3 lacs. The assessee had not obtained term loan from any nationalized bank or financial corporation nor had obtained registration under Indian Factories Act. The production too was discontinued for a period of more than two years. In these circumstances, after giving an opportunity, the eligibility certificate was cancelled. Being aggrieved by the same, the assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal after hearing both the parties observed that as per Notification No. ST-2-6468/X-9- 1(209)(8) U.P. Adhi-15/48, order 84 dated August 27, 1984, the unit is entitled for exemption under Section 4-A where the capital investment is less than Rs. 3 lacs. So the Tribunal found that the assessee is fulfilling the conditions for exemption under Section 4-A where the capital investment was only Rs. 70,000/-. Further, the Tribunal found that the assessee has applied for registration under the Indian Factories Act which was obtained on 1.6.1984. The delay was on the part of the department in granting registration certificate. Regarding closing of the production for six months, it was claimed by the assessee that delay was due to non-availability of Form-31 from the sales-tax department. The assessee could not import any goods from ex-U.P. So in the absence of raw material, the production was closed for six months from 1.4.85 to 28.2.86 and 1.3.86 to 31.3.86. Finally, the Tribunal has modified the order of the First Appellate Authority. Not being satisfied, the department is before this Court. I have heard the learned counsel for the revisionist. The Tribunal has modified the order of the First Appellate Authority by observing that actual exemption is to be given to the assessee w.e.f. 1.6.84 to 31.3.85. For the later period, the cancellation was upheld. In these circumstances, no question of law emerges from Tribunal's order. I find no reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. The revision preferred by the department is hereby dismissed.