Rajan Roy, J. - (1.) Heard. In both the revisions a common judgment of the Trade Tax Tribunal pertaining to the assessment-year 1994-95 and 1995-96 are under challenge, therefore, they are being decided by this Court accordingly by a common judgment. For reference, Trade Tax Revision No.148 of 2004, M/S Bajaj Auto Ltd. v. Commissioner Of Trade Tax.
(2.) These revisions have already been admitted. Though the questions were not formulated by the Court, they were formulated by the revisionist in the revision itself, however, with the agreement of the parties the Court has formulated these questions for its consideration as under: 1.) Whether the Tribunal could have decided the second appeal in the manner it has done, cursorily, without considering the grounds of the second appeal and the questions raised before it, by merely reiterating and affirming the order of the First Appellate Court without giving any reasons for non acceptance of the pleas raised before it by the revisionist-appellant ? 2.) Whether the learned Tribunal was justified in not considering the law laid down by the Apex Court that if the agreements have been executed outside the State of U.P. then the tax on such a transaction can not be levied in the State of U.P. ? 3.) Whether the learned Tribunal was justified in not considering that the transfer of right to me is a 'deemed sale' which also falls within the meaning of the term 'Sale' as such in view of Clause 29-A Article 266 of the Constitution it cannot be treated separately for the purpose of taxation ? 4.) Whether the learned Tribunal was justified in not considering that the levy of tax is on transfer of right to use the goods and the lease rentals received by the applicant in Delhi Office does not fall within the category of "goods" as defined in Section 2-(d) of the Act ? 5.) Whether the learned Tribunal was justified in claiming interest on a transaction which is not liable to tax in the State of U.P. since at the time of sale the tax was paid as such the deemed sale of same transaction cannot be subjected to tax ?
(3.) Sri Pradeep Agarwal, learned counsel for the revisionist as also Sri Rohit Nandan Shukla, learned counsel for the State have agreed to argue the matter on the aforesaid questions of law.;