Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


M/S Ganpati Synthetics Limited v. The Commissioner Trade Tax, U.P. Lucknow - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 1670 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 20838 (11 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).


Court no. 22

Trade Tax Revision no. 1670 Of 2006.


Trade Tax Revision no. 1671 Of 2006.

M/S Ganpati Synthetics Limited, Meerut ... Revisionist.

Versus                     The  Commissioner, Trade Tax, U. P. Lucknow..... Opp. Party.

Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.

These two revisions under section 11 of U.P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") are directed against the order of Tribunal dated 13th   November,  2006 relating to the assessment years 1997-1998 both under the U. P. Trade Tax Act as well as Central Sales Tax Act.

Applicant is involved in the business of manufacture and sales of Synthetics Yarn and claimed to have maintained books of account in the regular course of business.  The books of account of the applicant had been rejected mainly on the basis of one register found at the time of survey and entries of sale of 15278 Kg, which were not shown in the books of account. In the seized register, there were entries relating to the sales and on the verification difference at Rs.98,65,429/- was found.  Since the difference was found both in respect of U. P. as well as under Central sales, therefore, enhancement have been made both in U. P. sales as well as Central sales.  Applicant filed appeals before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Trade Tax.  The Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Trade Tax vide order dated 7.1.2001 rejected both the appeals.  Applicant filed two Second Appeals before the Tribunal.  The Tribunal by the impugned order, rejected both the appeals.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that the difference of Rs.98,65,429/- was of the commission which was paid by the applicant to the purchaser, therefore, it would not be a part of the turnover.  With regard to the entries of 15278 Kg. in the seized register, it is submitted that since the order was cancelled, therefore, sale could not be made.

I have perused the order of Tribunal and the authorities below.  The plea of the applicant cannot be accepted for the reason that if the amount of Rs.98,65,429/- related to the commission, the same should have been shown in the bill itself.  Admittedly, in the bill, the aforesaid amount had not been claimed as a commission in the bill.  In the bill, by this amount, less sale was disclosed, therefore, it cannot be said that the authorities below have erred in treating the amount of Rs.98,65,429/- as suppressed sale.  The turnover of U. P. sales as well as Central sales, have been estimated mainly keeping in view of the aforesaid difference.  Thus, the estimate of turnover cannot said to be arbitrary.  On the facts and circumstances of the case, no questions of law are involved in the present revisions.

In the result, both the revision fail and are, accordingly, dismissed.




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


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 |

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