Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 104608 (ALL)

M/S SAI RAM STONE SUPPLIERS v. THE COMMISSIONER COMMERCIAL TAXES U.P. LUCKNOW

STRE/116/2024 · 2025-07-23

Rohit Ranjan Agarwal

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:121646 Court No. - 34 Case :- SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 116 of 2024 Revisionist :- M/S Sai Ram Stone Suppliers Opposite Party :- The Commissioner Commercial Taxes U.P. Lucknow Counsel for Revisionist :- Pooja Talwar Counsel for Opposite Party :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J. 1. This revision filed under Section 58 of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act arises out of the order dated 14.08.2024 passed by the Commercial Tax Tribunal, Jhansi on the application moved under Section 31 of U.P. VAT Act, 2007 for rectification of the mistake. 2. The revisionist is engaged in the business of stone crushing and is registered under both U.P. VAT Act, 2007 as well as Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The assessment was made by the Assessing Authority and the tax was imposed on the basis of royalty amount. The matter had travelled to first appeal, and the findings recorded by Assessing Authority was confirmed. Thereafter, the Tribunal in the second appeal had reduced the quantum of the tax. A rectification application was moved by the assessee for correcting the mistake that the tax could have been imposed upon on the basis of twice the amount of the royalty @ 5%. 3. Specific plea was taken as to the tax imposed upon the solemstones as well as stone dust. The Tribunal had decided the rectification application and had granted the benefit as far as solemstones is concerned, but has not recorded any finding on the stone dust. This revision was preferred on the following questions of law:- "a) Whether the in reducing the amount of tax on solemstone Tribunal has committed an error in not reducing the amount of tax on the Chura manufactured by the applicant? b) Whether Tribunal has failed to record any finding on section 31 application of the UP VAT ACT filed by the applicant with regard to the tax of Rs 6,01680 in place of 9,07746 wrongly reduced with respect to chura manufactured by the applicant? c) That in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances stated above, it is absolutely necessary in the interest of justice that the present revision be allowed with costs and the impugned order dated 14.08.2024 passed by Member, Commercial Tax Tribunal, Jhansi (Annexure No. 7 to the revision) in Second Appeal No. 02 of 2023 for the Assessment Year 2016-17 under U.P. VAT Act, be set-aside and the aforesaid questions of law be decided in favour of the assessee-applicant; else the applicant shall suffer irreparable loss and injury.” 4. This revision was admitted on 24.10.2024. Learned counsel for the revision has submitted that specific case of the assessee was that the law, as far as the imposition of tax on the amount of royalty is concerned, is applicable both on the solemstones as well as stone dust. The Tribunal has recorded finding only on the solemstones, and not on the stone dust. 5. Sri V.K. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel has vehemently opposed the revision and submitted that it was only rectification application moved under Section 31 which has been decided by the Tribunal. 6. I have heard respective counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 7. From perusal of the order passed by the Tribunal, it transpires that it has dealt with the question of imposition of tax on royalty as far as solemstones is concerned, and also in right to use i.e. use of truck to transport the stone, but no finding has been recorded as to the stone dust, while specific plea was taken under Section 31. I find that the Tribunal should have recorded its finding as far as stone dust is concerned. 8. In view of the said fact, order dated 14.08.2024 passed by the Commercial Tax Tribunal, Jhansi is set aside. 9. The matter is remitted back to the Commercial Tax Tribunal, Jhansi to decide the matter afresh under Section 31 of the Act, and record its finding on the ground so raised in the said application within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order, strictly in accordance with law, after hearing the assessee. 10. Revision stands partly allowed. Order Date :- 24.7.2025 SK Goswami Digitally signed by :- SHIVAKANT GOSWAMI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad