Chandpur Sugar Co. Ltd. vs Commissioner of Trade Tax

Rajes Kumar, J.—These are two revisions against the order of the Tribunal dated May 22, 2003 for the assessment years 1982-83 and 1983-84. It appears that in both the assessment years, the applicant has sold molasses for Rs. 5,98,899.65 and Rs. 11,64,565.91 to M/s. Vam Organics Limited, Gajraula, respectively. In the assessment year 1982-83, the applicant has claimed partial exemption on the turnover of Rs. 2,82,264.27 and admitted four percent tax. However, in the assessment year 2003-04, full exemption has been claimed on the turnover of Rs. 8,82,301.64 to M/s. Vam Organics Limited, Gajraula. In the assessment year 1982-83 also the full exemption has been claimed on the sale to M/s. Vam Organics Limited, Gajraula. The claim of the full exemption has been denied by the assessing authority on the ground that M/s. Vam Organics Limited, Gajraula held recognition certificate only for the partial exemption and not for the full exemption u/s 4B of the Act.

Being aggrieved by the order of the assessing authority, the applicant filed two appeals before the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial), Sales Tax, Bijnor. Both the appeals have been dismissed. The applicant further filed two appeals before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by the impugned order dated July 20, 1990 rejected both the appeals. The Tribunal has categorically held that M/s. Vam Organics Limited, Gajraula, held recognition certificate u/s 4B for the partial exemption and therefore, upheld the order passed by the assessing authority.

The applicant moved two applications u/s 22 of the Act and for the rectification of the mistake in the order of the Tribunal dated July 20, 1990 on the ground that M/s. Vam Organics Limited, Gajraula, was holding recognition certificate for the full exemption. Both the applications have been rejected by the impugned order dated May 22, 2003.

Heard Sri R.R. Agarwal, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri B.K. Pandey, learned standing counsel.

5 The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that M/s. Vam Organics Limited, Gajraula, was holding the recognition certificate for the full exemption and therefore, the applicant was entitled for the full exemption on the sales of molasses to M/s. Vam Organics Limited, Gajraula.

The learned standing counsel submitted that all the three authorities have categorically recorded the finding that M/s. Vam Organics Limited, Gajraula, was holding recognition certificate u/s 4B for the partial exemption and not for the full exemption and therefore, the applicant was entitled for the benefit of partial exemption. He further submitted that the issue raised in the present case requires investigation of fact which is not permissible u/s 22 of the Act.

I have considered the rival submissions and perused the impugned orders.

The applicant has not annexed the copy of the recognition certificate issued to M/s. Vam Organics Limited, Gajraula, to establish that M/s. Vam Organics Limited, Gajraula, held recognition certificate u/s 4B for the full exemption. All the authorities below have recorded the categorical finding that M/s. Vam Organics Limited, Gajraula, held recognition certificate only for partial exemption.

Therefore, I do not find any error in the impugned orders and I am of the view that the issue raised in these revisions involves investigation of fact which is not permissible u/s 22. u/s 22, only the mistake apparent on the face of record can be rectified. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly refused to allow the application u/s 22. In the result, both the revisions fail and are dismissed accordingly.