Commissioner of Trade Tax Vs. Tara Engineering Works

.....of that power to invite the attention of the executive to any public purpose and the need for land for meeting that public purpose and to require the executive to take a decision, even a reasoned decision, with regard to the same in accordance with the statutory provisions, perhaps even within a reasonable time frame. however, the power of the court under article 226 must necessarily stop at that. thereafter, if the decision taken by the executive is capable of challenge and, there exist appropriate legal grounds for such challenge, it may also be open to the court to quash the decision and to require reconsideration. but no direction in the nature of mandamus whether interim or final can be issued by the court under article 226 to the executive to necessarily acquire a particular area of a particular piece of land for a particular public purpose. section 4; compulsory acquisition of land powers of state government held, renewal of lease in favour of petitioners would not take away power of state government of compulsory acquisition of land. renewal of lease would at best be taken into consideration for determining quantum of compensation. - universal engineering corporation that would clearly go to establish that the assessee had carried out only job-work. universal engineering corporation as well from the orders received from that concern......16-6-1997 passed by the trade tax tribunal, bench sharanpur.2. for the assessment year 1988-89, an assessment was made against respondent-assessee on a turnover of rs. six lacs on the allegation that the assessee was engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of pulp testing machines. on the contrary the assessee did not admit any taxable turnover and its case was that it had done job work on the orders of m/s. universal engineering corporation, ambala road, sharanpur, for which the entire material was supplied by that concern and it had received only labour charges to the extent of rs. 3,67,855.00. in appeal the assessment order was set aside and the case taken up by the assessee was accepted. against the appellate order, revenue filed a second appeal before the trade tax tribunal, but it was dismissed. feeling still aggrieved, this revision has been preferred.3. on behalf of the revisionist, learned standing counsel contends that the assessee had manipulated the manufacture and sale business in the job-work by obtaining orders from m/s. universal engineering corporation after receiving show-cause notice from assessing authority. it was further urged that the tribunal was not justified in taking the view that the assessee had not transacted any sales but had carried out only job-work.4. i have considered the submissions carefully. from a perusal of the order passed by the tribunal, it is evident that the assessee had produced enough material including the certificate from m/s. universal engineering corporation that would clearly go to establish that the assessee had carried out only job-work. the allegation that the assessee had manipulated the manufacture and sale business in the job-work by obtaining orders subsequently show-cause notice, is without any basis and nothing was brought to the notice of the court to substantiate that plea. in fact the tribunal has observed that the amount of rs. 3,67,855.00, formed part of rs. 9,84,275.00 for which the.....