Rajes Kumar, J. - (1.) These four revisions under Section 11 of U. P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as Act) are directed against the orders of Tribunal dated 30.6.1995 relating to the assessment years 1979-80, 80-81, 81-82 and 1982-83 respectively.
(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the applicant was carrying on the business of manufacturing of crushed bone from raw-Bones. The bone was liable to tax at the point of sale to consumer. Applicant had purchased raw-bone from unregistered dealer and therefore, Assessing Authority levied tax on the purchase turnover of raw-bone under Section 3-AAAA in all the aforesaid years. In the appeal, tax levied under Section 3-AAAA was confirmed. In the Second Appeal, Tribunal deleted the tax levied under Section 3- AAAA and allowed the appeal vide order 14.11.1991 and 16.5.1991 on the ground that the provision of Section 3- AAAA was declared ultra vires by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Pioneer Tanneries and Glue Works, Kanpur and Anr. v. State of U.P. reported in 1991 UPTC. Subsequently, by Act No. 8 of 1992 provisions of Section 3-AAAA has been reintroduced with effect from 1.4.1974. In the matter of Hotel Balaji and Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. reported in 1993 UPTC page 318, the decision in the case of Pioneer Tanneries and (Hue Works, Kanpur and Anr. v. State of U.P. has been over ruled and the provisions of Section 3-AAAA before the amendment and after amendment have been held valid. In view of decision of Apex Court in the case of Hotel Balaji and Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. and in view of reintroduction of Section 3-AAAA by Act No. 8 of 1992 with effect from 1.4.1974, applications under Section 22 of the Act were moved before the Tribunal on 20.8 1993. The said applications under Section 22 of the Act were rejected by the Tribunal vide order dated 25.10.1994 on the ground that as per Section 17 (8) of validation clause of Act No. 8 of 1972, application should be filed by 30.9.1992 for review of assessment order and since in the present case, applications were filed on 20.8.1992 after eleven months from 30.9.1992, applications have been rejected as barred by limitation. Commissioner of Trade Tax further moved application under Section 22 for rectification of the order dated 25.9.1994, by which, applications under Section 22 were rejected. Applications were mainly moved on the ground that Section 17 (2) of Act No. 8 of 1972 was subject to Section 17 (3) and in view of limitation contemplated under Section 17 (3) of Act No. 8 of 1992, and under Section 22 of the Act applications were not barred by time, thus, rejecting the application as barred by limitation was patent error and required rectification. Prayer was also made that the applications moved on 20.8.1993 were not beyond time and they were moved before the time contemplated under Section 22 and therefore, application dated 20.8.1993 be allowed and the tax on the raw-hide should be restored. Tribunal vide impugned order dated 30.6.1995, allowed the applications. Tribunal held that in the order dated 25.10.1994, limitation contemplated under Section 17 (3) of Act No. 8 of 1992 and limitation contemplated under Section 22 have not been considered by the Tribunal and the Tribunal has committed error in rejecting the application as barred by time. Tribunal restored the levy of tax under Section 3-AAAA which was reintroduced by Act No. 8 of 1992 with effect from 1.4.1994 and in view of decision of Apex Court in the case of Hotel Balaji and Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. (supra), in which, Section 3-AAAA prior to amendment and after the amendment have been held valid.
(3.) Heard Counsel for the parties.;