The Commissioner, Commercial Tax U.P. Lucknow vs. S/S Romsong Scientific And Sargical Ind. PVT. LTD.

In spite of service of notice upon the opposite party, nobody appears on behalf of opposite party even in the revised call.

Heard Mr. B.K. Pandey, learned ACSC for the revisionist.

By means of present revision, the revisionist is assailing the order dated 21.9.2024 passed by Commercial Tax Tribunal, Agra Bench I, Agra in Second Appeal No. 36 of 2016 (2010-2011).

Learned ACSC for the revisionist submits that the issue in hand is squarely covered with the decision of this Court passed in Sales/ Trade Tax Revision No. 713 of 2013 (Neha Enterprises Vs. Commissioner Commercial Tax Lko.) 6 In the case of Neha Enterprises (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court in para no.10 has held as under:- "

The argument of the dealer proceeds by falling on section 13(1) of the Act. The argument also attempts to give effect to the intention or policy of the State Government. Plainly interpreting and applying section 7(c) provides that no tax under the Act shall be levied and paid on the turnover of sale or purchase of such goods by such class of dealers as may be specified in the notification. The said exemption applies to the goods and also to the class of dealers who satisfy the conditions and fall within the notification issued under section 7(c) of the Act. The controversy is not over the exemption from levy and collection of tax between the dealer and the department, since the subject turnover falls admittedly under section 7(c) of the Act, read with notifications dated 24.02.2010 and 25.03.2010. The said admitted position takes us to the entitlement or eligibility of the dealer for the input tax credit. It is axiomatic, particularly in tax jurisprudence, that distinct concepts, such as taxable persons, taxable goods and taxable events, are established for levying and collecting the tax. Similarly, the scheme of availing input tax credit is determined by section 13 of the Act. Section 13(1) provides for allowing credit of an amount as input tax credit to the extent provided by or under the relevant clause to which the applicable condition is attracted. If the purchased goods are resold in the course of exporting the goods out of India, then the full amount of input tax credit can be claimed. Section 13(7) outlines the circumstances under which such a benefit cannot be allowed. Section 13(7) also sets out that no facility for input tax credit shall be allowed to a dealer with respect to the purchase of any goods where the sale of such goods by the dealer is exempt from tax under Section 7(c) of the Act. The prohibition from allowing input tax credit is a statutory mandate, and the view taken by the orders impugned, in the facts and circumstances of this case, is available and correct. In the teeth of clear expression in section 13(7) of the Act, we find it difficult to give effect to the intent or policy made known through notifications to grant input tax credit. The dealer availing section 7(c) of the Act knows the extent to which the input tax credit could be claimed. Hence, the Civil Appeal fails, and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. "

In view of the above, the Court is of the opinion that the issue in hand is squarely covered by the judgment of Neha Enterprises (supra).

In the result, the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and the same is hereby quashed.

The revision is allowed.

The substantial questions of law are answered accordingly in favour of the revisionist and against the opposite party. Order Date :- 13.5.2025 Rahul Dwivedi/- RAHUL DWIVEDI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad RAHUL DWIVEDI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad