Allied Agencies vs Commissioner of Trade Tax

The Appellant is a dealer registered under the Uttar Pradesh Sales Tax Act, 1948 (now renamed as the Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax Act, 1948) (for short, ''the Act'') and is engaged in the business of canvas cloth made of jute. In this appeal we are concerned with the assessment years, 1993-94, 1994-95, and 1995-96. The Assessee had claimed exemption from payment of sales tax under the Act on the ground that he is a dealer in jute and canvas cloth and the benefit of the Notification issued by the State Government in exercise of its powers under Section 4(a) of the Act should be made applicable to him.

The Assessing Authority dismissed the claim made by the Appellant/assessee and has imposed tax liability of Rs. 6,08,883.46/-, Rs. 15,38,589/- and Rs. 3,65,538/- for the assessment years 1993-94, 1994-95 and 1995-96 respectively. The Appellant/Assessee being aggrieved by the order passed by the Assessing Authority has preferred appeals before the First Appellate Authority.

The First Appellate Authority had also dismissed the claim made by the Appellant/assessee for the assessment years 1994-95 and 1995-96 but reduced the tax liability by Rs. 29,436.30/- for the assessment year 1993- 94.

The Appellant/assessee being aggrieved by the orders passed by the First Appellate Authority had preferred second appeal before the Trade Tax Tribunal, Kanpur (for short, "the Tribunal"). The Tribunal after considering the contentions canvassed by the Learned Counsels and examining the documents on record observed that the Canvas Cloth dealt by the Assessee is made of Jute. Tribunal further observed that the Jute Canvas Cloth is a Jute Cloth and therefore is taxable under the Act.

The Appellant/assessee being aggrieved by the order so passed by the Tribunal had preferred Trade Tax Revision case before High Court. The High Court by its impugned judgment and order has dismissed the appeals preferred by the Appellant/assessee. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order, the Appellant/assessee is before us in these appeals.

We have heard Learned Counsel for the parties to the lis.

To answer the issues canvassed by the Learned Counsel for the Appellant, we need not to notice the Notification issued by the State Government, dated 31.01.1985. The relevant Entry is Entry 53 which talks about Textiles''. Entry 53 specifically excludes durries, carpets, druggist, hosiery goods, readymade garments, hessian or jute cloth etc., but includes goods specified in annexure to the said Entry. The goods which are included within the meaning of textiles are cotton fabrics of all varieties, rayon or artificial silk fabrics including staple fibre fabrics of all varieties, woolen fabrics of all varieties, fabrics made of a mixture of any two or more of the above fibres, viz. cotton, rayon artificial silk staple fibre or wool and lastly canvas cloth, tarpaulins and water proof cloth.

Learned senior counsel appearing for the Appellant/assessee submits that the Appellant/assessee purchases canvass cloth and therefore, it is eligible for exemption under the aforesaid Notification. However, the fact finding authorities, namely; the Assessing Authority, the First Appellate Authority and the Tribunal have carefully examined the facts and held that the Assessee purchases Jute Canvas Cloth which is a Jute Cloth and therefore, excluded from the meaning of expression ''Textiles'' under Entry 53 of the Notification and exigible to tax under the Act. We do not see any illegality or perversity in the orders passed by the tribunal and the order passed by the High Court. In the result, we dismiss the appeal filed by the Appellant. No order as to cost.