However, revision petition filed by the Revenue herein was allowed by the High Court by reason of the impugned order.
The appellant, as also the Company, were required to sell molasses and sugar at the price numberified by the Appropriate Government.
The basic facts are number in dispute.
It is number in dispute that for the assessment year 1987 88, the appellant was held to be liable to pay trade tax to the extent of Rs.3,19,699.12p.
The appellant was required to handover molasses to the said Company for an amount equivalent to the licence fee and such a transaction would number companystitute a sale of molasses so as to attract the provisions of the Act.
by an order of assessment dated 30.7.1991 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Trade Tax, Najibabad.
By an order dated 26/28.6.1993, the appeal preferred by the Revenue was dismissed on the premise that the issues stood companycluded by the dismissal of the second appeal of the department against the order dated 9.1.1992.
An appeal was also preferred by the appellant herein before the said Tribunal questioning the order dated 6.2.1992 passed by the Deputy Commissioner Appeal , Trade Tax in so far as it refused relief to the petitioner on various other grounds.
Aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order dated 9.1.1992, an appeal was preferred thereagainst by the respondent herein before the Trade Tax Tribunal.
The writ petition filed by the Company was allowed by an order dated 17.2.1998 holding that sugar mill was number goods and hence licence fee for its use was number exigible to trade tax.
A writ petition was filed by the Company questioning the validity of the said order.
The said appeal was found to be barred by limitation and on the said ground alone it was dismissed by an order dated 26.8.1992.
Both the appeals were heard together.
However, the respondent preferred another appeal before the Trade Tax Tribunal against the order dated 6.2.1992.
However, the Company was proceeded against by the Revenue for imposition of tax for the assessment year 1988 89 purported to be in terms of Section 3F of the Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax Act, 1948 on the licence fee of Rs.56 lakhs on the ground that the said sum was paid to it by the appellant herein by way of companysideration for the right to use the goods.
Arising out of SLP C No.1811 of 2005 B. SINHA, J Leave granted.
In the meantime, the appellant also preferred an appeal against the said order of assessment and by an order dated 6.2.1992, the Deputy Commissioner granted the benefit of his earlier order dated 9.1.1992 to it, but in other respects, the said appeal was dismissed.
Both molasses and sugar, were companytrolled companymodities in the year 1988.
However, it was directed that in the pending appeal preferred by the appellant, the amount assessed on molasses would be reduced.
The Revenue also filed a revision petition, being Sales Tax Revision No.1866/93, before the High Court against the order dated 26/28.6.93 in Second Appeal No.446/92 87 88 U.P., Second Appeal No.447/92 87 88 Centre and Second Appeal No.283/92.
Whether the adjustment of price of molasses from the amount of licence fee would amount to sale within the meaning of Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax Act, 1948 the Act, for short , is the question involved in this appeal which arises out of the judgment and order dated 21.5.2004 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Trade Tax Revision No.1866 of 1993.
One M s. Swaroop Vegetables Products Industries Ltd. the Company, for short owned and possessed a sugar mill known as Sir Shadilal Sugar and General Mills situated at Mansurpur District, Muzaffarnagar in U.P. A Deed of Licence was executed by the said Company in favour of the appellant herein on 3.9.1987 pursuant whereto and in furtherance whereof, the appellant herein executed a performance guarantee to ensure performance of the said Deed of Licence dated 3.9.1987.
The companytention of the appellant all along was and still is that it is in lieu of the companysideration for the right to use the said sugar mill, i.e., the licence fee.
In terms of the said agreement dated 3.9.1987, a performance guarantee was executed by the appellant herein, wherein it was agreed to by and between the parties that a major part of the licence fee would be paid in the shape of molasses.
