Saumitra Dayal Singh, J. - (1.) These revisions have been filed by the applicant-assessee against the common order passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal, Meerut, dated 7.1.2009, passed in second appeal nos. 273/2003 for A.Y. 1999-2000 (U.P.) and 274/2003 for A.Y. 1999-2000 (Central). By that order, the Tribunal has allowed the appeals filed by the revenue and held the assesssee not entitled to benefit of set off under Section 4-BB of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').
(2.) During assessment years in question, the assessee had manufactured tubular poles claiming benefit of notification no. 2339 dated 22.10.1996, read with notification no. 1223 dated 22.5.1998. In the course of the assessment proceedings, the assessee claimed set off of tax paid on purchase of raw materials used in the manufacture of tubular poles. The assessing officer rejected the claim on the reasoning that the assessee had not raised any such claim in its return and, therefore, it was not permissible to grant the same at the stage of assessment. The first appeal filed by the assessee was allowed by the Joint Commissioner (Appeal), by his order dated 19.2.2003, on the reasoning that under the aforesaid notifications, there was no restraint place in law that such set off may be claimed at the stage of filing of return and not later. Insofar as the assessee had not violated the law in charging the tax on the sale of tubular poles, it was held entitled to the set off, as claimed. Upon revenue's appeal, the Tribunal has allowed the same on the reasoning that the scheme of set off cannot be permitted to be used as a handle to retain an amount by the selling dealer, for his personal gain. Insofar as the assessee had made excess realization of 2%, the State was held entitled to retain the same as trustee.
(3.) Heard Sri Rakesh Ranjan Agrawal, Senior Advocate, assisted by Ms. Pooja Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant-assesee and Sri B.K. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the revenue.;