Rajes Kumar, J. - (1.) Present revision under Section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"} is directed against the order passed by the Full Bench of the Tribunal; Lucknow dated 26th February, 1996.
(2.) The applicant is a partnership firm constituted with effect from 6.1.1988 consisting of five partners, namely, Sri Bhagwan Das pakhrani, Sri Munnu Mal, Sri Manoj Pakhrani, Smt. Leelawati Devi and Smt. Sarla Devi and claimed exemption under Section 4-A of the Act on the turnover of stone grits manufactured in a unit established at Main Road, Kanpur Road, Moth in District Jhansi.
(3.) A partnership firm in the name and style "United Stone Crushing Company" consisting of five partners, namely, Sri Hashmat Ram, Sri Bhoj Raj, Sri Parshu Ram, Sri Chancier Lal and Sri Jagdish Kumar established a unit for the manufacturing of stone grits. The said unit was closed on 3rd November, 1987. Thereafter, the land of the unit was sold for Rs. 40,000/- by Sri Paras Ram S/o Changa Mal the owner of the land in favour of Sri Bhagwan Das pakhrani and Sri Munnulal vide sale deed dated 23.12.1987 and the machineries of the unit were sold by all the five erstwhile partners in favour of all the five new partners for Rs. 3 lacs vide sale deed dated 3.12.1987. The copies of the two sale deeds are Annexures 2 and 3 of the counter affidavit. After the purchase of the land and the machineries, the five partners on 6.1.1988 have constituted a partnership firm. It was claimed that the production in the unit was started on 9.12.1986 and the old partnership firm filed an application under Section 4-A of the Act on 15.2.1986. However, the filing of the application is in dispute inasmuch as it is said that there is no evidence in this regard. The new partnership firm constituted on 6.1.1988 filed an application for exemption on 6.1.1988. Another application under Section 4-A(2-B) was filed on 6.12.1990, the date of the application appears to be 23.10.1990. The Divisional Level Committee vide order dated 2nd December, 1992 rejected the application for exemption. The applicant filed review application on 27.2.1994, which has also been rejected by the Divisional Level Committee, vide order-dated 22.8.1995. The applicant filed appeal against the said order before the Tribunal. Tribunal by the impugned order rejected the appeal. Tribunal has rejected the appeal mainly on the ground that after the closure of the business by the old firm, the new partnership established unit after acquiring the ownership of the assets with effect from 6.1.1988. Tribunal has not accepted the claim of the applicant that the old firm has filed the exemption application in absence of any evidence. Tribunal held that it is not the case of the re-constitution of the firm or succession of the unit by the new partnership firm. Tribunal further held that it is not the case where the assets and liability of the old firm has been taken over by the new partnership firm, while in the present case, land and machineries have been purchased by the registered deeds and thereafter the unit was operated. It has been held that the machineries installed in the unit were old and acquired for use in the earlier unit and, therefore, the partnership firm was not entitled for exemption.;