[Per : Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J.]

This revision, preferred under Section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948, applicable to State of Uttarakhand (read with Sec. 55 of Uttarakhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005), is directed against the order dated 12.02.2009 passed by Commercial Tax Tribunal, Uttarakhand in second appeal No. 54 of 2006 (Assessment Year 2001-2002-Provincial), whereby said appeal has been dismissed affirming the order passed by first appellate authority and the Assessing Officer.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders passed by all the three authorities.

3. Brief facts of the case are that revisionist/assessee is a manufacturer/dealer of T.V. sets, V.C.D. sets etc. It was registered before 09.11.2000, i.e. when the State of Uttarakhand was created, under the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 and also under the Centre Sales Tax Act. The revisionist’s unit at Kashipur (Uttarakhand) has already closed its production with effect from 10.05.2001. In the relevant year 2001-2002 the revisionist had shown stock transfer of T.V. sets etc. from its sister unit in Noida/Delhi. Since said stock transfer is shown in the Return, the Assessing Officer (for short A.O.), treating admitted tax on such stock transfer, imposed interest under Section 8(1) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 as the admitted tax was not found deposited. Aggrieved by said order dated 28.02.2004 passed by A.O. i.e. Deputy Commissioner (Tax Assessment), Kashipur, assessee preferred first appeal before Joint Commissioner (Appeals). After hearing the appellant (present revisionist) the first appellate authority dismissed the appeal on the ground that the tax exemption claimed by the assessee was not available to him as its units at Noida and Kashipur were not the holders of the Eligibility Certificate required for exemption under Section 4-A of U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948. Then, aggrieved by order dated 11.08.2006 passed by first appellate authority, the assessee preferred second appeal No. 54 of 2006 before Commercial Tax Tribunal. The Tribunal also concurred the view taken by the assessing officer and first appellate authority and held as the assessee’s units at Noida or Kashipur are not the holders of Eligibility Certificates, as such the unit at Kashipur cannot claim exemption under Section 4-A of U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948, hence this revision.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned counsel for the State, we do not find any error of law committed by the authorities below. Section 4-A of U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 empowers the State Government to exempt a new industry or newly expanded industrial unit from being taxed or to tax them at a reduce rate. Clause (d) of sub Section (2) of Section 4-A of aforesaid Act requires that manufacturer would be required to furnish the Eligibility Certificate for claiming the exemption. In the present case at hand the revisionist/assessee has failed to furnish the Eligibility Certificate from its Noida unit from where stock transfer was shown to Kashipur unit, as such there is no question of granting exemption to the assessee. The Government Order No. 50 dated 26.12.2000 extends facility for a temporary period to the units holding Eligibility Certificate before 09.11.2000 on the date the new State was carved out in respect of their transfer of stock from such units (within the State of U.P.) to the State of Uttarakhand. Needless to say that the exemption under Section 4-A is not available in respect of inter state sale.

5. For the reasons as discussed above, this revision, in our opinion, is liable to be dismissed. The same is dismissed summarily.

(Stay application No. 3691/2009 automatically stands disposed of).