Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

THE COMMISSIONER TRADE TAX, UP versus S/S ASHOK METAL INDUSTRIES, MORADABAD

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


The Commissioner Trade Tax, Up v. S/S Ashok Metal Industries, Moradabad - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 782 of 1999 [2006] RD-AH 20439 (1 December 2006)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court no.22

TRADE TAX REVISION NO.782 of 1999.

The Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P. Lucknow.    Applicant

Versus

M/S Ashok Metal Industries, Moradabad.                                          Opp.Party.

Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.

Present revision under Section 11 of U.P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as "Act") is directed against the order of Tribunal dated 22nd March, 1999 relating to the assessment year, 1980-81.

Dealer/opposite party (hereinafter referred to as "dealer") was involved in the manufacturing of silli gulli and sales of non-ferrous metal. Assessing authority passed the assessment order on 16.07.1983 and has not accepted the plea of the dealer that it was Karkhanedar and levied the tax on the turnover of silli gulli. The assessing authority in the assessment order has also adjudicated the issue with regard to the interest and held that the dealer was liable for interest under section 8 (1) of the Act. Assessing authority also calculated the amount of interest under section 8(1) of the Act at Rs.17,843/-. It appears that the dealer filed Writ Petition against the assessment order before this Court, which has been dismissed on 2.5.1996. After the dismissal of the writ petition, it appears that dealer moved an application on 21.12.1996 stating therein that it was not liable for interest. The said application was rejected vide order dated 7.2.1997. Against the said order, dealer filed appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Trade Tax, Moradabad. Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Trade Tax, Moradabad vide order dated 8.12.1997 allowed the appeal and held that the dealer was liable for interest only for the period 2.5.1996 to 20.12.1996. According to the appellate authority, dealer was liable for interest from the date of the order passed by this Court in the writ petition. Commissioner of Trade Tax filed appeal before the Tribunal. Apart from other grounds, on the ground that the appeal against the alleged order dated 7.2.1997 was not maintainable inasmuch as the issue with regard to the interest has already been adjudicated in the assessment order against which no appeal was filed and it had become final. Tribunal, however, has not accepted the plea of the Commissioner of Trade Tax and dismissed the appeal and upheld the order passed by the first appellate authority.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Copy of the assessment order has been filed along with the supplementary affidavit.

Learned Standing Counsel submitted that once the issue with regard to the interest has been adjudicated in the assessment order by the assessing authority and no appeal has been filed against the said order, it has become final and it was not open to any of the authority to readjudicate the issue. He submitted that vide order dated 7.2.1997, issue with regard to the interest has not been adjudicated and, therefore, the first appellate authority has erred in adjudicating the issue with regard to the interest on the basis of the order dated 7.2.1997 by which the application dated 21.12.1996 has been rejected. He submitted that the appeal against the said order was not maintainable. He further submitted that the Tribunal has erred in confirming the order of the first appellate authority. Learned Counsel for the dealer relied upon the order of the Tribunal.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the order of the Tribunal and the authorities below and the assessment order, which has been filed along with the supplementary affidavit.

Perusal of the assessment order reveals that the issue with regard to the interest has been adjudicated in detail in the assessment order and it has been held that the dealer was liable for interest under section 8 (1) of the Act. The amount of interest has also been calculated at Rs.17, 843/-. Against the assessment order, no appeal has been filed and the same has become final. In the circumstances, it was not open to the appellate authority to adjudicate the issue with regard to the interest. The order of the first appellate authority and the Tribunal are erroneous and are liable to be set aside.

In the result, revision is allowed. The order of the Tribunal dated 22nd March, 1999 and the order of the first appellate authority dated 8th December, 1997 are set aside.

Dated.01.12.2006.

VS.


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.