Bharati Sapru J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Bharat Ji Agrawal, learned senior counsel for the revisionist and Sri K. M. Sahai, learned standing counsel for the State.
(2.) THE controversy involved in the revisions are identical and the same being decided by a common order treating the Commercial Tax Revision No. 1643 of 2008 as leading revision. The present revision has been filed by the revisionist against the order dated October 22, 2008 passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal by which the Trade Tax Tribunal has given to the revisionist partial relief of stay of 80 per cent of the tax demanded on entry tax but has refused 20 per cent of the pre -deposit by saying that the same can be agitated during the course of the appeal. The period for which the provisional assessment has been made is from January to June 2008.
(3.) THE questions of law referred to are as follows : (1) Whether even otherwise Entry Tax Act is invalid, illegal and void being violative of articles 301 and 304 of the Constitution of India as held by the honourable court in the case of Indian Oil Corporation Limited v. State of Uttar Pradesh : (2007) 10 VST 282 (All) in its judgment delivered on January 2007 on the basis of judgment of Constitution Bench of the honourable Supreme Court in the case Jindal Stainless Ltd. v. State of Haryana : (2006) 145 STC 544 (SC): (2006) 7 SCC 241 ? (2) Whether even assuming without admitting that Act No. 30 of 2007 is legal, and valid even though the validity of the said Act is pending adjudication before the honourable court, still in view of the certificate issued by Deputy Commissioner (Assessment), Commercial Taxes, that the seller GAIL has its branch/terminal station at Pipraula, Shahjahanpur from where natural gas is supplied to the applicant, the charging section 4 of the Act does not supply ? (3) Where in view of decision of this honourable court in the case of Mohd. Kalim v. Commissioner of Trade Tax, (1993) UPTC 1206 and in the case of Risk Cotton Ltd. v. Sales Tax Officer, 66 STC 364 (sic), copy of which was filed before the Tribunal along with written argument, the Tribunal was not justified in overlooking said judgments while partly allowing the appeal of the applicant ? (4) Whether the Tribunal being quasi -judicial authority ought to have considered the questions argued and raised and the decision of this honourable Supreme Court relied upon and hence in view of decision of honourable Supreme Court in catena of cases the order of the Tribunal is not sustainable and is liable to be quashed/modified ?;