IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Trade Tax Revision No. 53 of 2007 Commissioner, Commercial Tax, (earlier Trade Tax) Uttarakhand, Dehradun. ………….. Revisionist Versus M/s Vishal Enterprises, Gadarpur, District – Udham Singh Nagar. ………….. Respondent WITH Trade Tax Revision No. 34 of 2008 Commissioner, Commercial Tax, (earlier Trade Tax) Uttarakhand, Dehradun. ………….. Revisionist Versus M/s Deepak Trading Company, Rudrapur, District – Udham Singh Nagar. ………….. Respondent Present: Mr. Sudhir Singh, Brief Holder for the State/revisionist. Coram : Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, Chief Justice Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, Judge Date: 16th May, 2011 JUDGMENT Barin Ghosh, C.J. (Oral) The questions raised in both these revision applications are identical and, accordingly, both the revision applications are being disposed of by this judgment and order. Despite notice no one is appearing for the respondent in any of these revisions. 2. The respondents in these revision applications are registered dealers under Uttarakhand (Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax Act, 2 1948) Adaptation and Modification Order, 2002, in respect of, amongst others, paddy and rice. They exported rice outside the State. While exporting rice, paddy was converted into rice. The quantum of rice exported was less than 66.66 per cent of the quantum of paddy, thus, converted. The Revenue Department of the State, accordingly, demanded tax on the difference between 66.66 per cent of paddy, thus, converted and the percentage of paddy actually exported in the form of rice. Whether, in terms of the notification issued by the Government of Uttar Pradesh, dated 24th October, 2000, the respondents had such tax liability or not was the subject matter of dispute before the Tribunal. The Tribunal noticed its own judgment rendered on 8th November, 2005 in Appeal Nos. 42 and 43 of 2003, which was based on the judgment of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court dated 8th August, 1998 rendered on Revision Petition No. 179 of 1997. As would be evident from the judgment under revision, the Hon’ble Alahabad High Court in Revision Petition No.179 of 1997 was concerned with sale of raw hide against ‘H’ form and the exporter had manufactured ‘Upper’ of shoes and ‘Footwear’ and exported the same instead of raw hide, and the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court held that the same is sufficient proof of export, and that, if the exporting dealer had used the goods that was purchased for export, the dealer cannot be held responsible for it. Following the said judgment of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court, the Tribunal concluded the matter. 3. The Notification of the Government of Uttar Pradesh dated 24th October, 2000, under which export was effected, specifically provides how far a dealer exporting rice is exempted from paying tax. The relevant portions of the said Notification, translated into English, are as follows:- “3. Generally the ratio of rice and husk in paddy is 2/3 and 1/3 respectively. Thus the ideal recovery standard is 66.66% but to fix the export obligation, following shall be the scheme in case of Basmati and non-Basmati rice: 3 (1) To ascertain export obligation regarding Basmati rice, the minimum recovery standard is fixed at 50%. The miller/producer may export rice produced from paddy in excess of minimum recovery of 50% upto standard recovery of 66.66% but the difference of standard recovery and the actual export shall be deemed to be local/internal sale and trade tax, mandi fee and development cess shall be payable on such quantity. In case of export of rice less than minimum recovery standard of 50%, the exporter shall not be entitled to benefit of exemption from trade tax, mandi fee and development cess. (2) To ascertain export obligation regarding non- Basmati rice, the rice recovery standard is fixed at standard recovery of 66.66%. In other words, the exporter shall not be entitled to benefit of exemption from trade tax, mandi fee and development cess in case of export of rice recovered less than the standard recovery of 66.66%”. 4. In view of specific provision contained in the said Notification, which having not been dealt with by the Hon’ble High Court at Allahabad in its afore-mentioned judgment, Tribunal by applying the ratio of the said judgment of Hon’ble High Court at Allahabad instead of applying its mind in relation to specific provisions contained in the said Notification, we feel, misdirected itself. 5. We, accordingly, set aside the judgments of the Tribunal under revision and uphold the decision of the authorities lower than the Tribunal. (Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) ( Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 16.05.2011 16.05.2011 P. Singh