PRECISE LABORATORIES LIMITED Vs. COMMISSIONER TRADE TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Bharat Ji Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the revisionist and Sri S.P. Kesharwani, learned Standing Counsel for the department. Since arguments have been heard at length, the revision is being finally disposed of at the admission stage.

(2.) The revisionist claims to be a public limited company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956. Pursuant to certain notification issued under Section 4-A of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 issued by the State Government promising certain industries to grant exemption from payment of tax for a period of six years, the revisionist applied for grant of exemption under Section 4-A of the Act. The Divisional Level Committee, Meerut, by its order dated August 12, 1991 granted eligibility certificate to the revisionist exempting it from payment of sales tax for a period of 5 years from the date of first sale which according to the revisionist is March 28, 1990, though the date of starting of production was March 25, 1990. Thereafter on learning that the site where unit of the revisionist existed fell within the jurisdiction of the Dadri Tehsil, the revisionist obtained necessary certificate from Tehsildar, Dadri Tehsil. The revisionist was entitled for exemption for a period of six years. Since the eligibility certificate was for 5 years, the revisionist filed an application the before Divisional Level Committee, Meerut, for modifying the exemption certificate granted earlier, and the Divisional Level Committee, Meerut, modified the exemption certificate by order dated April 28, 1994. Thereafter, the Commissioner of Trade Tax received a report dated August 12, 1994 said to have been submitted by Sub-divisional Magistrate, Ghaziabad, on presumption that the site of the unit of revisionist falls within Ghaziabad Tehsil, the Commissioner of Trade Tax initiated proceeding under Section 4-A(3) of the Act for modification of the eligibility certificate, and ultimately modified the eligibility certificate granted by the Divisional Level Committee, Meerut. The matter went up to Tribunal which directed the Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P., by order dated September 24, 1997, to pass an order de novo. The Commissioner of Trade Tax again passed an order dated November 10, 1997 whereby exemption of six years was reduced to five years.

(3.) In the meantime, the assessment for the assessment year 1995-96 was completed by the assessing authority by order dated April 30, 1997. Since, by that time order dated January 8, 1996 by the Commissioner of Trade Tax passed under Section 4-A(3) of the Act was in existence and was served upon the revisionist on February 6, 1996, tax up to February 6, 1996 was assessed by the assessing authority in view of the Government Notification dated April 26, 1994 read with Circular Nos. (94-95)-92-252 dated May 26, 1995 and 18/262 dated May 26, 1995. That after the final order was passed by the Commissioner of Trade Tax, U.P., Lucknow, on November 10, 1997, the assessing authority issued a demand order dated January 6, 1998 by which a demand of Rs. 99,25,725 was raised which pertains to the tax levied and not waived off on the sales of the product between the period February 6, 1996 to March 27, 1996. In view of the aforesaid two circulars the revisionist was entitled for remission (waiver off interest up to November 10, 1997) or up to March 27, 1996 when the period of six years had expired which was prior to the passing of the final order under Section 4-A(3) of the Act, when the demand order for the said amount was served upon the revisionist. He filed an appeal under Section 9 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Trade Tax, Ghaziabad. An objection with regard to the maintainability of the appeal was raised by the department. Arguments were heard on March 20, 1998, March 21, 1998 and March 28, 1998, On March 31, 1998, the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) passed an order holding that appeal was maintainable and the order granting stay against realisation of 72 per cent of the disputed tax was passed. However, ultimately with the change of the presiding officer, the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal on the ground that the appeal against demand notice/order was not maintainable. The appeal filed before Trade Tax Tribunal was also dismissed. Hence, this revision.