BHARATI SAPRU, J. - (1.) HEARD learned senior Counsel Sri Bharat Ji Agrawal assisted by Sri Piyush Agrawal for the assessee and Sri B.K. Pandey learned standing counsel for the Department.
(2.) THIS revision has been filed by the assessee being aggrieved by an order of the Tribunal dated February 20, 2001 by which the Tribunal has rejected the case of the assessee for grant of an exemption under notification dated July 27, 1991 by which exemptions towards the tax were given to certain industries, whose date of production was falling between the dates with effect from April 1, 1990 up to March 31, 1995. The questions of law referred are as under: (1) Whether the applicant having established its unit in pursuance of Notification No. 1093 dated July 27, 1991 in which the unit manufacturing vanaspati was not in the prohibited list and the same was included for the first time in annexure II of Notification dated March 31, 1995, hence the applicant was entitled for the grant of eligibility certificate having set up the unit prior to March 31, 1995? (2) Whether the land having been purchased for the vanaspati unit in the year 1993, the building having been constructed in 1994 and the raw material and electric connection having been obtained prior to March 31, 1995, and the applicant has invested a substantial amount of more than crores of rupees prior to March 31, 1995 on the representation made by the State Government in Notification No. 1093 dated July 27, 1991; hence in view of the law laid down by the honourable apex court in the case of Pournami Oil Mills v. State of Kerala [1987] 65 STC 1, State of Bihar v. Usha Martin Industries Ltd. [1987] 65 STC 430 and Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Asst.), Dharwar v. Dharmendra Trading Co. [1988] 70 STC 59 (SC) the applicant was entitled for grant of eligibility certificate under Section 4A of the U.P. Trade Tax Act? (3) Whether the raw material having been purchased on March 27, 1995 for a sum of Rs. 2,68,800 from the registered dealer M/s. Prahlad Industries, Kosikala, Mathura, the payment of which, was made by A/c payee cheque and the electric generators having been installed for power on March 25/26, 1995; hence in view of the Explanation (3) to Section 4A of the Act the artificial date of starting production has to be seen and not the actual date of starting production? (4) Whether the Trade Tax Tribunal was not justified in completely overlooking the certificate of the Asstt. Director, Electric Safety, U.P. Government, Mathura, dated March 29, 1995 while deciding the appeal? (5) Whether the Trade Tax Tribunal has committed an error of law in overlooking the written arguments which were filed and the various documents which were filed along with the written arguments while dismissing the appeal of the applicant? (6) Whether in any view of the matter, the order passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal is illegal and is liable to be quashed?
(3.) THE facts of the case are that the assessee is a private limited company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956, which sought to establish a new unit in the city of Mathura, in pursuance of the benefit which was being extended under Notification dated July 27, 1991 issued by the State under Section 4A of the U.P. Trade Tax Act for the manufacture of vanaspari.;