Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

THE COMMISSIONER, TRADE TAX, U.P. LKO. versus S/S SINGHAL TRADING CO., BAREILLY

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


The Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P. Lko. v. S/S Singhal Trading Co., Bareilly - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 862 of 2000 [2006] RD-AH 21064 (13 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

Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J

Heard learned Standing Counsel.

By the impugned order, Tribunal has set aside the order passed under section 10-B of the Act. A consignment of Rab Salawat was intercepted by the Trade Tax Officer, Mobile Squad and was seized on the ground that it was Rab Sayar and not Rab Salawat. The goods were subsequently released on furnishing of security. In pursuance of the seizure order, notice under section 13-A (4) of the Act was issued by the assessing authority. Dealer filed reply. After being satisfied with the reply of the dealer, notice under section 13-A (4) was vacated. Thereafter Deputy Commissioner (Executive) initiated proceeding under section 10-B of the Act and levied penalty at Rs.17,220/- under section 13-A (4) of the Act in exercise of powers under section 10-B of the Act. Tribunal by the impugned order set aside the order passed under section 10-B of the Act. Tribunal held that if the case of the Department was that the goods were not Rab Sayar, Rab Salawat, the sample of the same should be taken for further adjudication, but the Trade Tax Officer, Mobile Squad has not taken the sample. Tribunal held that along with the goods, challan, mandi gate pass, builty etc were available and the goods were duly found entered in the books of account, and, therefore, there was no case of penalty under section 13-A (4) of the Act. I do not see any reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. Finding of the Tribunal is finding of fact. No question of law is involved in the present revision.

Revision fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.

Dated.13.12.2006.

VS.862/2000.


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.