COMMISSIONER OF TRADE TAX Vs. STERLING MACHINE TOOLS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three revisions arise out of the common order passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal in Second Appeals Nos. 215 of 1992 (A.Y. 1979-80), 216 of 1992 (A.Y. 1980-81) and 217 of 1992 (A.Y. 1981-82) allowing the three appeals of the assessee and directing the assessing authority to refund or adjust with interest the excess amount of tax deposited by the assessee as ordered by the Trade Tax Tribunal vide order dated July 27, 1990.

(2.) The factual position of the case appears to be that for the aforesaid assessment years the assessee had taken the matter of assessment to the Tribunal in second appeals. The second appeals filed by the assessee were allowed by the Tribunal against the assessment orders for the years under consideration and after fixing liability for tax the Tribunal had directed that the excess amount deposited by the assessee shall be refunded to him in accordance with the rules. The said order of the Tribunal had become final as the department did not feel aggrieved by the said order and it did not file any revision before the High Court. Thereafter the assessee claimed that he had deposited tax of amount of Rs. 10,79,918.90 paise for the assessment year 1979-80, Rs. 12,59,601.86 paise for the assessment year 1980-81 and Rs. 12,94,719.82 paise for the assessment year 1981-82 whereas by the order dated July 27, 1990 passed by the Tribunal the tax liability finally imposed upon him was Rs. 8,09,939.33 paise, Rs. 9,44,878.18 paise and Rs. 11,94,138.52 paise respectively for the aforesaid assessment years. He was entitled to refund of the excess amount deposited by him. The assessing authority, however, rejected the applications vide order dated December 6, 1990 on the ground that the excess amount was deposited after he realizing the same from the customers and in view of the provisions contained in Section 29-A of the Trade Tax Act, 1948, he was not entitled to refund of the amount. Aggrieved by the orders of the assessing authority, the assessee filed first appeals which were dismissed by the first appellate authority [Deputy Commissioner (Appeals)]. Thereafter the second appeals were filed before the Tribunal which were allowed by the impugned orders passed by the Tribunal. The department feeling aggrieved has filed these three revisions under Section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act.

(3.) I have heard Sri B.K. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the revisionist and Sri Bharatji Agarwal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the dealer/opposite party.