HARI SWARUP, J. - (1.) THESE two references under section 11(1) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act have been made to us at the instance of the assessee, M/s. Gaddar Mal Dau Dayal. The assessment years in respect of which the references have been made are 1962-63 and 1963-64.
(2.) THE questions of law referred to us are as follows : "(1) Whether the applicant was legally estopped from raising a legal plea about the non-taxability of certain commodity, the turnover in respect of which has been admitted and tax paid ? (2) Whether it is lawful to refuse the relief on admitted turnover only on the ground that the legal plea was not raised before the appellate authority although the plea had been raised and accepted in revision and relief in respect of the enhanced turnover was given ?" The assessee is a dealer in foodgrains, cotton, oil-seeds, etc. The turnover relevant for these references is only that of cotton. In the assessment year 1962-63, the assessee admitted its turnover of cotton as of Rs. 6,26,886 and for the assessment year 1963-64, the assessee admitted its turnover to be of Rs. 5,32,000. The assessee paid the tax on these turnovers. The Sales Tax Officer did not accept the turnovers and for the assessment years 1962-63 and 1963-64 determined the turnovers at Rs. 7,40,000 and Rs. 7,00,000 respectively. The assessee went up in appeal. The appellate authority reduced the turnover for the assessment year 1962-63 to Rs. 7,00,000 and that for the assessment year 1963-64 to Rs. 6,10,000. The assessee filed revisions against the appellate orders. The revising authority confirmed the tax which had been admitted by the assessee as due and which had been shown to be paid up before the appeal was filed but set aside the disputed tax.
(3.) THE Judge (Revisions), while deciding the revision, held that during the relevant assessment years the turnover of cotton was not taxable, but refused to give relief in respect of the tax already paid by the assessee on the admitted turnover of cotton as the assessee and admitted his liability for that amount when he had filed the appeals. The relevant portion of the judgment is as follows : "However, the applicant had himself admitted and paid tax on the declared turnover of this article, while filing appeals. So, it is not open to him to challenge the payment of tax on that turnover in revision." ;