SUDHIR AGARWAL,J. - (1.) Heard Sri Pradeep Agarwal, learned counsel for revisionist and learned Standing Counsel for respondent.
(2.) These revisions under Section 11(1) of U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as "Act 1948") have been filed against judgment and order dated 26.12.2007 passed Trade Tax Tribunal, Bench 3, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as "Tribunal") in Appeal nos. 346 of 2004 and 347 of 2004, relating to Assessment Year 1998-99. Revision no. 49 of 2008 was admitted on following questions of law: "(i) Whether learned Tribunal was justified in maintaining the rejection of the books of accounts despite the fact neither there was any survey nor any adverse material was found in the books of accounts. (ii) Whether the learned Tribunal was justified in enhancing the taxable turnover without having recorded any specific findings that the applicant is a manufacturer or importer of the goods, since iron and steel is taxable at the point of manufacturer or importer. (iii) Whether learned Tribunal was justified in maintaining the rejection and enhancing the taxable turnover fixed by the first appellate authority that the entire purchases were made in the State of U.P. and all of them are tax paid purchases since the iron and steel is a declared commodity under the Act. (iv) Whether the learned Tribunal was justified in ignoring the facts of Section 14 and 15 of the Central Sales Tax Act that iron and steel are the declared commodity and can be subjected to tax only once in the State and the goods had already suffered tax at the time of its purchase and thus there is no evasion of tax as has been recorded by the first appellate authority in his order. (v) Whether the learned Tribunal was justified in ignoring the law laid down by this Hon'ble Court and passed the impugned order on the basis of extraneous consideration which has vitiated the findings recorded in the impugned order. (vi) Whether the learned Tribunal was justified in proceedings on extraneous consideration and committed only factual but legal error as well which has vitiated the findings."
(3.) Revision No. 50 of 2008 was admitted on following questions of law: "(i) Whether the learned Tribunal was justified in allowing the appeal filed by the Commissioner of Trade Tax and enhancing the amount of penalty under Section 13A (4) of the Act by the First Appellate Authority without recording any specific findings of willful omission in part of the applicant for showing the transaction in the books of accounts. (ii) Whether the learned Tribunal was justified in considering the specific findings recorded by the first appellate authority that neither any Central Sales Tax was charged nor was it calculated as was evident from the original bill received from the check post. (iii) Whether the learned Tribunal was justified in ignoring the material facts that the goods transported have already suffered tax and were liable to tax in the State of U.P. being a declared commodity under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. (iv) Whether the learned Tribunal was justified in ignoring the facts of Section 14 and 15 of the Central Sales Tax Act that iron and steel are the declared commodity and can be subjected to tax only once in the State and the goods had already suffered tax at the time of its purchase and thus there is no evasion of tax as has been recorded by the first appellate authority in his order. (v) Whether the learned Tribunal was justified in ignoring the law laid down by this Hon'ble Court and passed the impugned order on the basis of extraneous consideration which has vitiated the findings recorded in the impugned order. (vi) Whether the learned Tribunal was justified in proceedings on extraneous consideration and committed only factual but legal error as well which has vitiated the findings.";