HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 467 of 2009 WITH SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 460 of 2009 SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 461 of 2009 SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 469 of 2009 Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Suyash Agarwal Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : C.S.C. Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Suyash Agarwal Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : C.S.C. Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Suyash Agarwal Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : C.S.C. Versus M/S Central Electronics Ltd .....Revisionist(s) Commissioner Commercial Tax U.P. Lucknow .....Opposite Party(s) M/S Central Electronics Limited .....Revisionist(s) Commissioner Commercial Tax U.P. Lucknow .....Opposite Party(s) M/S Central Electronics Limited .....Revisionist(s) Commissioner Commercial Tax U.P. Lucknow .....Opposite Party(s) M/S Central Electronics Ltd .....Revisionist(s) Commissioner Commercial Tax U.P. Lucknow .....Opposite Party(s) Court No. - 7 HON'BLE PIYUSH AGRAWAL, J. Heard Shri Rakesh Ranjan Agrawal, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Shri Suyash Agarwal, learned counsel for the revisionist and Shri B.K. Pandey, learned ACSC for the State - respondents. Since the issues involved in these connected revisions are similar, therefore, the same are being decided by the common order with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. Sales/Trade Tax Revision No. 467 of 2009 is taken as a leading case for deciding the controversy involved in these revisions. Sales/Trade Tax Revision No. 467 of 2009: The instant revision has been filed against the impugned order dated 28.02.2009 passed by the Commercial Tax Tribunal for the Assessment Year 1995-96 arising out the proceedings under the Central Sales Tax Act. The above-noted revision was admitted by this Court vide order dated 01.07.2009 on the following question of law:- " (i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified in upholding the proceeding U/s 21(2) of the U.P. trade Tax Act without considering the fact that no opportunity of hearing has been afforded to the applicant by the Additional Commissioner before granting permission? (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified in upholding the levy of tax @ 2.5% on electronic goods sold by the applicant in the course of inter-state-trade instead of 2% as notified under the notification no. 25473 dated 10.10.95? (iii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified in levying surcharge @ .5% even though, no surcharge could be levied on the turnover of inter-state-sales on such goods? (iv) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified in ignoring the submissions made by the applicant as well as the judgement relied upon by the applicant?" Learned senior counsel for the revisionist submits that the applicant - assessee carries on the business of purchase and sale of electronic goods, solar photo system, etc. He further submits that the applicant sold STRE No. 467 of 2009 2 Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Suyash Agarwal Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : C.S.C. electronics goods outside the State of U.P. and admitted the tax liability on such goods @ 2% as per notification no. 2473 dated 10.10.1995 issued under section 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act. The Assessing Authority, vide order dated 06.12.1999, accepted the books of account and the tax admitted by the applicant. Thereafter, on 30.03.2002, the Assessing Authority initiated re-assessment proceedings under section 21(2) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, read with section 9 of the Central Sales Tax Act on the ground that the electronic goods should be taxable @ 2.5% instead of 2% and levied tax on the sale of electronic goods. Aggrieved by the order dated 30.03.2002, the applicant preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), which was dismissed vide order dated 30.09.2002. Thereafter, the applicant preferred second appeal before the Commercial Tax Tribunal, Ghaziabad, which has been dismissed vide impugned order dated 28.02.2009. Learned senior counsel further submits that the proceedings against the revisionist have been initiated only on the basis of a circular dated 18.03.2002. The said circular was under challenged before this Court in M/s Canon India Private Limited Vs. State of U.P. & Others [2003 NTN (22) 126]; wherein, this Court has specifically quashed the circular dated 18.03.2002. He further submits that once the circular dated 18.03.2002 has been quashed, on the basis of which re-assessment proceedings against the revisionist were initiated, then the entire proceeding goes. He has placed reliance on the judgement of this Court in CTT Vs. M/s Modi Pawn Limited [2005 UPTC 326]. He further submits that the judgement relied upon by the Tribunal in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. M/s Aysha Hosiery Factory Private Limited [1992 UPTC 454] is also not applicant to the facts of the present case. Per contra, learned ACSC supports the impugned order and submits that the re-assessment proceedings were initiated against the revisionist as the revisionist has wrongly paid the tax @ 2% in stead of 2.5%. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Court has perused the record. The records shows that the re-assessment proceedings were initiated against the revisionist on the basis of the circular dated 18.03.2002; wherein, it was provided that the notification no. 2473 dated 10.10.1995 is not applicable on the sale of inter-State electronic goods, where, rate is to be calculated at 2% with or without any declaration in Forms C or D. The said circular is, admittedly, quashed by this Court in M/s Canon India Private Limited (supra). Once the very basis for initiation of reassessment proceedings holding the notification dated 10.10.1995 is not applicable, the said notification is of no aid to the revisionist on its inter-State sale of electronic goods. STRE No. 467 of 2009 3 In the connected Sales/Trade Tax No. 460 of 2009, so far as regular assessment is concerned, the notification specifically provides a benefit, which cannot be denied without any cogent or reasoned material. The issue in hand is squarely covered by the judgement of this Court in M/s Canon India Private Limited (supra), which has not been disputed by the learned ACSC. In view of the aforesaid facts & circumstances of the case, the impugned orders passed in these revisions cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. The same are hereby set aside. The revisions succeed and are allowed. The questions of law are answered, accordingly, in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue. September 8, 2025 Amit Mishra STRE No. 467 of 2009 4 (Piyush Agrawal,J.) Digitally signed by :- AMIT KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- AMIT KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad