- (1.) OM PRAKASH, J. This is a revision against the impugned order dated August 22, 199 passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow.
(2.) THE opposite party set up a unit for manufacturing detergent powder and soaps and was granted an eligibility certificate for a period of five years, commencing from May 16, 1983. By order dated February 5, 1988 passed under section 4-A (3) of the U. P. Trade Tax Act, 1948, the Commissioner, Trade Tax, reduced the period from five years to three years on the ground that total investment in the unit set up by the opposite party was less than Rs. 1 lakhs. The Commissioner was of the view that the land on which the unit was set up was self acquired property of Khairati Lal, father of the three partners, who set up the unit and that the same was not owned by the opposite party and, therefore, the investment made in the land could not be taken into consideration. He was of the view that the rest of the investment made in the building and plant and machinery was short of Rs. 3 lakhs. The Sales Tax Tribunal relying on the evidence produced by the opposite party held that the land on which the unit was set up by the opposite party, was Hindu undivided family (H. U. F.) property and that the total investment made in the land, building and plant and machinery was more than Rs. 3 lakhs and, therefore, the words passed by the Commissioner, Trade Tax, reducing the period of exemption, was bad.
(3.) IT has come in the order of the Sales Tax Commissioner that the investment in the building of the unit was to the turn of Rs. 74,285 and the investment made in the plant and machinery was Rs. 55,341. Total of these two amounts in Rs. 1,29,626. IT is minus the investment made in the land, which according to the Commissioner was self acquired property of Khairati Lal, father of the three partners. No exception can be taken to the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the land on which the unit was set up, belonged to the H. U. F. , because that finding is based on the evidence, adduced by the opposite party. The Tribunal relied on an assessment made on the H. U. F. In that assessment, the land in question was shown to be the property of the H. U. F.;