Saumitra Dayal Singh ORDER
Saumitra Dayal Singh, J.
1. Heard Sri N.C. Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant-assessee and Sri B.K. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the opposite party-revenue.
2. The present revision has been filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Full Bench of the Trade Tax Tribunal, Lucknow dated 16.01.2007 in Appeal No. 134 of 1997 (under Section 4-A). By that order, the Tribunal has rejected the assessee's appeal and thereby rejected the claim for exemption made by the assessee under Section 4-A of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').
3. The present revision was filed on four questions of law and was admitted without reference to any particular question of law, however, today, submissions have been advanced with reference to question no. 1 and 2 as framed in the memo of revision that are quoted below:
"(i) Whether the Trade Tax Tribunal was justified in taking into consideration the total value of the machines despite the fact that this Hon'ble Court has given finding that 20% of the total investment made cannot be termed as negligible ?
(ii) Whether the Trade Tax Tribunal was justified in rejecting the appeal filed by the applicant/revisionist without giving any finding to the effect that the aforesaid two motors were acquired for use anywhere in India ?"
4. Earlier, by a common judgment dated 25.05.2006 passed in Trade Tax Revision No. 334 of 2000 (Vishnu Rice Mill, Mutthiganj, Allahabad Vs. Trade Tax Tribunal, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow and Another) and Trade Tax Revision No. 220 of 2005 (Commissioner Trade Tax, U.P., Lucknow Vs. M/s. Vishnu Rice Mill, Mutthiganj, Allahabad) this Court had allowed the those revisions and set aside the earlier order of the Tribunal, dated 18.07.1998. The Tribunal was thus required to record specific finding with respect to the following issues:
"(a) Whether the machines have actually been purchased by the assessee or not having regard to the documents which are available on record ?
(b) Whether the machines have been used or acquired for any other factory or not, in light of the provisions of Section 4-A ?
(c) Whether the value of the machines in question can be terms negligible having regard to the total investment made, having regard to the law laid down by this Court ?"
5. Upon remand, the Tribunal has returned findings to the effect that the value of the disputed machines was not negligible. Its finding is based on the decision of this Court dated 25.05.2006 in Trade Tax Nos. 334 of 2000 and 220 of 2005 referred to above. The Tribunal has also recorded two other findings - the assessee was unable to establish it had purchased the disputed machines from the dealer as disclosed by him. Then, the Tribunal has further reached a conclusion that the assessee has failed to discharge the burden to establish that the disputed machines had not been earlier put to use or had not been acquired for use before being sold to the assessee.
6. On such reasoning, the Tribunal has dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee and thus rejected the claim of exemption made under Section ........