- (1.) As the controversy involved in these six revisions is identical, the matter is being decided by this Court by a common judgment and order treating the Commercial Tax Revision No. 819 of 2010 as the leading case. This revision has been filed by the assessee under section 58 of the U. P. Value Added Tax Act against the order of the Commercial Tax Tribunal, Bench I, Agra, dated September 14, 2010 for the assessment year 2005-06. The questions of law sought to be answered are hereunder : (1) Whether in view of the Notification No. 1307 dated April 28, 2005 since full rebate was allowed by the assessing authority in the assessment order dated October 6, 2007 of trade tax on account of entry tax having been paid at the full rate of five per cent, hence no State development tax can be legally levied in view of clause (iii) of Notification No. 1307 dated April 28, 2005 ? (2) Whether the assessing authority in the assessment order dated October 6, 2007 having allowed the trade tax rebate to the full extent on the entire sale of kraft paper and no trade tax was levied on the sale of kraft paper hence in view of the Notification No. 1307 dated April 28, 2005 no State development tax was payable and the Tribunal has committed an error of law in upholding the order of the authorities below requiring all the four sub-clauses of the notification to be fulfilled together ? (3) Whether the assessing authority having held that the kraft paper was sold to the manufacturer holding the recognition certificate under section 4B of the U. P. Trade Tax Act and the time was also given for furnishing the form III B no State development tax was payable by the applicant in view of sub-clause (i) of Notification No. 1307 dated April 28, 2005 and the Tribunal has committed an error of law in upholding the levy of State development tax on the ground that after each clauses (i) to (iv) the word 'or' has not been used ? (4) Whether in view of section 3H(4)(d) of the U. P. Trade Tax Act it is only the goods alone which is required to be specified in the notification in respect of which the State development tax shall not be payable ? (5) Whether the goods which have been specified in the notification dated April 28, 2005, in respect of which no State development tax is payable having been classified in four clauses which are independent to each other hence the view of the Tribunal to the contrary is erroneous in law ? (6) Whether in any view of the matter the applicant is not liable for payment of any State development tax hence the view of the Tribunal is erroneous in law ?
(2.) The facts of the case are that the assessee is a manufacturer and a seller of kraft paper. For the assessment year 2005-06 an order of assessment was passed by the assessing authority by which he accepted the account books of the assessee as well as the disclosed turnover.
(3.) The kraft paper, which is manufactured by the assessee is notified to be taxable at the rate of five per cent, under section 3A of the U. P. Trade Tax Act. The relevant notification is Notification No. 730 dated March 7, 2005 issued under section 3A(1) of the U. P. Trade Tax Act. Another notification was issued under section 4(1) of the U. P. Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 2000 on February 10, 2005 by which it was provided that entry tax shall be payable on the papers meant for packing excluding news print at the rate of five per cent of the value of goods.;