(1.) These two revisions under Section 11 of U.P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as "Act") are directed against the order of Tribunal dated 29.12.1998 for the assessment years 1989-90 and 90-91.
(2.) Brief facts giving rise to the present revisions are that the applicant purchased plastic goods from M/s M/s Ideal Distributors, Agra. While making the sale M/s Ideal Distributors had charged 12% tax from the applicant M/s Ideal Distributors in their assessment proceedings contended that such plastic goods were liable to tax @ 8% and not @ 12/o. It appears that the claim of M/s Ideal Distributors was accepted and the tax @ 8% was assessed. Applicant contended that the excess amount of tax paid by M/s Ideal Distributors had not be refunded in view of Section 29-A(2) of the Act and applicant being the person from whom excess amount of tax had been realized, applications under Section 29-A(3) of the Act was moved before the concerned officer for the refund of the excess amount. The said applications were rejected. First appeals filed by the applicant have also been rejected. Applicant filed second appeals before the Tribunal Tribunal by the impugned order rejected the application on the ground that the applicant is a dealer and, therefore, does not fall within the purview of word "person" under Section 29-A(3) of the Act. According to the Tribunal under, Section 29-A(3) of the Act only the consumer is person, who can claim the refund.
(3.) Learned Counsel for the dealer submitted that the view of Tribunal is erroneous. He submitted that Section 29-A(3) provides refund of the excess amount to the person from whom the dealer had actually realised the excess amount. He submitted that the applicant was the person from whom the excess amount had been realized by M/S Ideal Distributor, Agra, for which, there is no dispute, therefore, in view of Section 29-A(3) it was legally entitled for the refund of the amount. He submitted that the reasons given by the Tribunal for refusing the refund is an extraneous consideration which can not be made basis, inasmuch as, the provision does not say so. Learned Standing Counsel supported the order of the Tribunal.