- (1.) RAJES Kumar, J. These four revisions under Section 11 of the U. P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the "act") are directed against the order of the Tribunal dated 16. 7. 2002 relating to the assessment years 1989-90 and 1990-91 both under the U. P. Trade Tax Act as well as Central Sales Tax Act.
(2.) IN all the four revisions common question relating to the taxability of PVC sheets is involved. According to the claim of the opposite party/dealer (hereinafter referred to as "dealer") PVC sheets is a textile and accordingly exempted under the notification of the textile. It is claimed that in the PVC sheets, the base material is cotton fabric on which PVC rexine etc. have been coated. The case of the revenue is that PVC fabric is specifically excluded from textile under the Notification No. ST-II-3714/x-6 (1)/854-U. P. Act 15/48-Order-85, dated 5. 6. 1985 and, therefore, it is not exempted. Assessing authority levied the tax as an un classified item. First appellate authority accepted the plea of the dealer and al lowed the exemption. Commissioner of Trade Tax filed appeals before the Tribu nal. Tribunal dismissed all the appeals and confirmed the order of the first appel late authority. Though, the Tribunal held that under the notification No. ST-ll-3714/ X-6 (l)/85-U. P. Act 15/48-Order-85, dated 5. 6. 1985, PVC fabric is specifically ex cluded from textile and therefore, is not exempted, still allowed the exemption on the ground that in the subsequent years, the assessing authority himself ex-, empted the cottorv coated fabric, ;. e. PVC fabric. Heard Sri B. K. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel and Sri R. R. Agrawal, learned Counsel for the opposite party. Learned Standing Counsel submitted that each year is an independent year for the purpose of the assessment and therefore, merely because in the subsequent years, the assessing authority by mistake had allowed the exemp tion on the PVC fabric manufactured by the dealer, the claim of exemption cannot be allowed during the years under consideration, if PVC fabric is not exempted under the notification. He submitted that though the Tribunal has held that PVC fabric is specifically excluded from textile in the notification No. ST-II-3714/x-6 (I)/ 85-U. P. Act 15/48-Order-85, dated 5. 6. 1985 and is not exempted, still has ille gally allowed the exemption merely on the ground that in the subsequent years," the assessing authority had himself allowed the exemption. He submitted that the view of the Tribunal is patently erroneous and is liable to be set aside. He submitted that PVC fabric, since, specifically excluded from textile, it cannot be treated as textile under the notification No. ST-ll-3714/x-6 (l)/85-U. P. Act 15/48-Order-85, dated 5. 6. 1985. He submitted that it is open to the Legislature to ex clude any item from any goods by fiction. He submitted that in the various cases this Court and other High Courts have treated PVC fabric as cotton fabric and textile and, therefore, it appears that in the notification No. ST-II- 3714/x-6 (l)/85-U. P. Act 15/48-Order-85, dated 5. 6. 1985 PVC fabric has been specifically ex cluded from, textile. This shows the intent of the Legislature to exclude PVC fabric from the textile.
(3.) IN support of his contention he relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Gaurav Trades, Gorakhpurv, Commissioner of Trade Tax, U. P. Lucknow, 2007 (34) NTN 298. ? Learned Counsel for the dealer submitted that in the case of dealer itself this Court has held that cotton coated fabric is exempted from tax, which is reported in 2006 (29) NTN 407, Commissioner, Sales Tax, U. P. , Lucknow v. S/s Laxm/ Leather Cloth Industries Pvt. Ltd. , Noida. He further submitted that in the case of CTTv. S/s Geeta Traders, 2004. UPTC 707, this Court has held cotton coated fabric as textile. He further relied upon the various decisions in support of the claim that PVC fabric being cotton coated fabric is exempted from tax under totification No. ST-11-37. 14/x-6 (l)/85-U. P. Act 15/48-Order-85, dated 5. 6. 1985 be ing textile. ';