SUDHIR AGARWAL,J. - (1.) In all these revisions common questions of law are involved and hence as agreed and requested by learned counsel for the parties all these revisions are being decided by this common judgment.
(2.) It is stated at the Bar that questions of law raised in these revisions are squarely covered by judgment dated 13.11.2009 passed by this Court in the bunch of Trade Tax Revisions led by Trade Tax Revision No. 108 of 2008 (M/s A.R. Rice Mills Pvt. Ltd. Hardoi v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, U.P., Lucknow) . The judgment of this Court reads as under: "All the revisions have been filed by the assessees under Section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act 1948 against the different judgment/order passed by U.P. Trade Tax Tribunal, Lucknow for the assessment years mentioned above. Since the controversy involved in the above mentioned revisions are almost identical along with the facts and circumstances, hence all the revisions are decided by this common order. In all the revisions, during the assessment years under consideration, the assessees were engaged in the manufacture and sale of rice. Each assessee was enjoying the eligibility certificate issued under Section 4A of the Trade Tax Act for a particular period or tax rebate on the fixed capital investment as mentioned in the relevant certificate. The assessees have purchased the paddy as raw material and paid the tax. The assessees have claimed the set off of the tax already paid on the paddy as per Section 4BB before getting the benefit in the computation to be made under Section 4A of the U.P. Trade Tax Act. The same was allowed in a few cases by the Assessing Officer. However, in a few cases, it was allowed. Where the benefit was allowed, the A.O. has recalled the same. In both the situations, the assessees have approached the first appellate authority who has allowed the claim of the assessees. Being aggrieved, the Department has filed appeals before the Tribunal. The Single Member of the Tribunal has allowed the appeal filed by the Department and restored the order passed by the A.O. where he has denied / recalled the benefit already given pertaining to the tax paid on paddy. Not being satisfied, the assessees have knocked the door of this Court through the present revisions. With this background, Sri Pradeep Agarwal learned counsel for the revisionists submitted that each assessee has established a new units for making rice from paddy and applied the eligibility certificate which was granted under section 4A of the Act. As per section 4BB, the assessees were entitled for set off of the tax already paid on the purchase of raw material i.e. paddy. To this effect, the Commissioner has issued a circular no. 554 dated 22.07.2004. He further submitted that on the basis of the circular and statutory provisions, the assessees have moved necessary applications claiming the benefit under Section 4BB but in a few cases, the A.O. has rejected the application filed by the assessee. However, in some cases, the A.O. has allowed the claim of the assessee but the same was recalled. Being aggrieved, the assessees have filed the first appeal before the first appellate authority who has allowed the claim of the assessee. Not being satisfied, the department has filed an appeal before the Trade Tax Tribunal who vide its impugned order has allowed the appeals filed by the department and wrongly denied the benefit given by the first appellate authority. He further submitted that a Division Bench of the Tribunal has earlier decided a few appeals on merits in similar situation and has allowed the claim of the assessees. For this purpose, he has drawn the attention to the order passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal in the case of Commissioner Trade Tax v. Sri Bhagwan Rishab Nath (Second Appeal No. 298/299 of 2005) . However, he submitted that the single member who was the part of the Division Bench has denied the benefit of Section 4BB to the revisionists. Lastly, he made a request that the impugned order passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal may kindly be restored. On the other hand, Sri Sanjai Sareen learned counsel for the Department has supported the impugned orders passed by the Tribunal. He submitted that the Tribunal has decided only the proceedings passed under Section 22 of the Trade Tax Act. I have heard both the parties at length and gone through the material available on record. From the record, it appears that the benefit of Section 4BB of the Act is the statutory benefit and the assessees are entitled for the said benefit. To this effect, the Commissioner has already issued a circular no. 554 dated 22.07.2004. The Division Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Sri Bhagwan Rishab Nath (Supra) has already allowed the said benefit but in the instant cases, the Single Member who was the part of the Division Bench of the Tribunal has denied the said benefit to the assessees. It may be mentioned that similar matters must receive the similar treatment as per the ratio laid down in the following cases: 1.Diksha Suri v. ITAT 232, ITR 395 Delhi 2.U.O.I. v. Paras Laminates (P) Ltd., 186 ITR 722 SC 3.Commissioner of Income Tax v. L. G. Ramamurthy, 110 ITR 453 Madras The coordinate Bench of the Tribunal must follow the earlier decision as per the ratio laid down in the case of C.I.T. v. Travencore, 265 ITR 526 Kerala . The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 295 ITR 466 observed that rule of precedent was an important aspect of certainty in the rule of law, and prejudice had resulted to the assessee since the precedent had been considered by the Tribunal. In the light of the above discussion and by considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, I set aside all the impugned orders passed by the Tribunal and restored the matter back to the Tribunal to decide the issue denovo by keeping in mind the ratio laid down in the above mentioned cases but by providing the reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessees. The Tribunal will be at liberty to admit the fresh evidence, if need be, in the interest of justice. In the result, all the revisions filed by the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes."
(3.) Following aforesaid judgment another judgment was passed by this Court on 09.09.2014 in Trade Tax Revision No. 31 of 2009 (M/s H.B. Rice Mills Pvt. Ltd. Hardoi v. Commissioner of Commercial Tax, U.P. Commercial Tax Bhawan ) with other connected matters wherein the short order passed by this Court reads as under: "Heard Sri Pradeep Agarwal, learned counsel for the revisionist as well as Sri Sanjieva Shakhdhar, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondent. Both the parties have agreed that the facts and the issues involved in the above cases are identical. Hence, all these revisions are being disposed of by a common order. Further, learned counsel for the revisionist as well as the revenue submit that the controversy involved in the present revisions is similar to the Bunch of Revision No. 108 of 2008, where this Court has passed an order dated 13.11.2009. The operative portion of the aforesaid revision, on reproduction, reads as under:" In the light of the above discussion and by considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, I set aside all the impugned orders passed by the Tribunal and restored the matter back to the Tribunal to decide the issue denovo by keeping in mind the ratio laid down in the above mentioned cases but by providing the reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessees. The Tribunal will be at liberty to admit the fresh evidence, if need be, in the interest of justice." With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the benefit of the above mentioned order is extended to the present revisionist also. In view of above, all the revisions are restored back to the Tribunal to decide the issue denovo in the light of the discussions made in the above mentioned revision. In the result, all the revisions filed by the assessee are allowed.;