ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA,J. - (1.) With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this revision is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself.
(2.) Assessee was engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of paper. It was registered under the provisions of U.P. VAT Act as well as under the Central Sales Tax Act and was assigned a specific tin number. The assessee claims that on 10.11.2007 the entire manufacturing activity was closed and such fact was duly intimated to the VAT Authorities, the Director of Industries and other relevant departments. In the relevant year i.e. 2007-2008 after closure of its unit, the plant and machinery was sold for a sum of Rs. 13,25,000/- within the State of U.P. and Rs. 1,11,70,588/- against Form-C as Central Sales. The assessee claimed benefit of Rule 8(iii) of the U.P. Value Added Tax Rules, as per which such receipts are liable to be deducted from determination of turnover of sale. The assessing authority, however, found that as against the total tax liability of Rs. 4,03,412/-, the assessee had already realized and deposited Rs. 2,23,412/-, therefore the assessee is liable to deposit the balance tax amount of Rs. 1,80,000/- also. This order has been affirmed by the first appellate authority and the Tribunal. Thus aggrieved, the assessee is before this Court.
(3.) Sri Piyush Agrawal appearing for the assessee submits that by virtue of Rule 8(iii), the amount realized from sale by the dealer of his business as a whole is liable to be exempted, and that the department has wrongly demanded tax upon such transaction.;