The Commissioner Commercial Tax Lko. vs. S/S Vishal Steel Suppliers

Court No. - 1 Case :- SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 623 of 2014 Revisionist :- The Commissioner Commercial Tax Lko. Opposite Party :- S/S Vishal Steel Suppliers Counsel for Revisionist :- S.C. Counsel for Opposite Party :- Praveen Kumar and Case :- SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 624 of 2014 Revisionist :- The Commissioner Commercial Tax Lko. Opposite Party :- S/S Vishal Steel Suppliers Counsel for Revisionist :- S.C. Counsel for Opposite Party :- Praveen Kumar and Case :- SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 625 of 2014 Revisionist :- The Commissioner Commercial Tax Lko. Opposite Party :- S/S Vishal Steel Suppliers Counsel for Revisionist :- S.C. Counsel for Opposite Party :- Praveen Kumar Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. At the very outset, it is agreed on behalf counsel for the parties that issue involved in the aforesaid revisions is covered by the judgement and order passed by this Court dated 08.11.2021 in leading Sales/Trade Tax Revision No. 24 of 2015, in which following order was passed:- "Heard Sri Ravi Shankar Pandey, learned standing counsel for the revisionist and Sri Praveen Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite party. These four revisions have been filed against the common order dated 30.10.2014 passed by the Commercial Tax Tribunal in Second Appeal Nos. 422, 423, 424 and 425 of 2013 for the Assessment Year 2008-09 (under section 28 of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, Section 9(4) of the Entry Tax Act, Section 8 of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act and Section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act respectively) and against the order dated 30.10.2014 in Second Appeal No. 440 of 2014, for the assessment year 2007-08 under section 8 of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act. Since there is common issue, common question has been raised, in all the five revisions so they are decided together, which is quoted below: "Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Commercial Tax Tribunal was legally justified in granting the benefit of impute tax credit to the dealer without verifying the nature of transaction as discussed by the assessing authority as well as by the first appellate authority." The opposite party is a registered dealer and is engaged in the business of purchase and sale of iron steel. During the years in dispute the purchases were made from various registered dealers. The Assessing Authority treated the said purchases from unregistered dealer and, therefore, has rejected the claim of Input Tax credit against such purchases against which the dealer opposite party preferred first appeal which was allowed and the matter was remanded to the Assessing Authority. Against the remand order the opposite party preferred second appeal which was allowed hence the present revision. Learned standing counsel submits that since the information was received from the Special Investigation Officer and the purchases shown by the opposite party were from the unregistered dealer, therefore input tax credit claimed by the opposite party was disbelieved but by the order of first appellate authority and the Tribunal without verifying the same has wrongly allowed the claim of Input Tax Credit. Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party submits that all the purchases were made through registered dealer during the transactions in question. He further submits that all the transactions were made through bank which were duly verified by the Tribunal and therefore, the Tribunal allowed the input tax credit. The Court has perused the record. The record reveals that the purchases have been disbelieved by the Assessing Authority on the basis of some information received from the Special Investigation Officer. On the said information purchases shown by the opposite party was treated to be purchases from unregistered dealer and, therefore, rejected the claim of input tax credit. The first appellate authority being the court of fact ought to have verified the said information but instead of doing so, has remanded the matter. The second appeal filed by the opposite party. The Tribunal has recorded the finding of fact after verification from the official web site that during the relevant period purchases shown by the dealer from the parties were duly registered and all the payments were made through bank. The said fact has not been disputed by the counsel of the revisionist. However, this Court on the identical facts in the case of CIT vs. M/s Modern steel Traders (Sales/Trade Tax revision Defective No. 201 of 2013 decided on 10.12.2013 this Court dismissed the revision filed by the State. However, counsel for the revisionist has produced the judgment in Sales / Trade Tax Revision Nos. 143 of 2015 and 144 of 2015 for the assessment year 2010-11 of the dealer-opposite party which has been decided by this Court in favour of the opposite party - dealer by dismissing the State revision. The Tribunal being the last court of fact has recorded the finding of fact in favour of the opposite party that all the transactions were made through Bank and were duly accounted for as well as verified. Further, the purchases made from the respective dealers were duly registered and verifiable from the official web site of the Department and therefore, it cannot be said that purchases were made from unregistered dealers.

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the law laid down by this Court as well as finding recorded no question of law arises. I see no reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. All the revisions are accordingly dismissed." The present revisions are dismissed in terms of aforesaid order. Order Date :- 22.2.2022 AKT TRIPATHI Date: 2022.02.24 10:03:23 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad