Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

THE COMMISSIONER, TRADE TAX LUCKNOW versus S/S MAHENDRA KUMAR & COMPANY

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


The Commissioner, Trade Tax Lucknow v. S/S Mahendra Kumar & Company - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION DEFECTIVE No. 249 of 1999 [2006] RD-AH 211 (3 January 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.55

TRADE TAX REVISION NO.(249) OF 1999

AND

TRADE TAX REVISION NO.(284) OF 1999

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

Versus

S/S Mahendra Kumar & Company, Jalaun. ....Opp. Party

***************

Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.

These two revisions under section 11 of U.P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as "Act") are directed against the order of Tribunal dated 25.11.1998 for the assessment years 1989-90 and 93-94.

Dealer/opposite party (hereinafter referred to as "Dealer")  was carrying on the business of food grains and oil seeds and had purchased foods grains and oil seeds  from registered dealers, who have issued Form 3 C-(2) and 3 C-(5). These forms have been filed during the course of assessment proceedings and on the basis of these forms; dealer had claimed the exemption on the purchases. Assessing authority rejected the exemption on the ground that the parties from whom purchases have been made, had closed their business and it is not possible to verify the purchases from said dealers. It has been held that it could not be verified that the tax have been paid by the said selling dealers and on these grounds exemption against the said Form 3 C-(2) and 3 C-(5) have been rejected. Appeals filed by the dealer were rejected. Dealer filed appeals before the Tribunal. Tribunal by the impugned orders allowed the appeals. Tribunal held that merely because the business of the firm, who have sold the goods and issued the alleged forms have closed, exemption against Form 3 C-(2) and 3 C-(5) could not be disallowed.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

I do not find any error in the order of Tribunal. Both the food grains and oil seeds are liable to tax at the point of first purchase under section 3-D (1) of the Act. Section 3-D (7) (a ) says that every purchase within Uttar Pradesh by a dealer, either directly or through another, whether on his own account or on account of any one else, shall, for the purpose of sub-section (1), be deemed to be the first purchase, unless the dealer proves to the satisfaction of the assessing authority after having furnished such declaration or certificate, obtained from the selling dealer, in such form and manner and within such period, as may be prescribed. Forms are prescribed under Rule 12-B of the U.P. Trade Tax Rules. Filing of the forms for the claim of exemption has been held mandatory by the Apex Court in the case of Prabhu Dayal Prem Narain Vs. CST, reported in 1988 UPTC, 1204. Apex Court in the case of M/s Chunni Lal Parsadi Mall Vs. CST, reported in (1986) 4 STR, 144 (SC) and this Court in the case of M/s Bharat Iron Stores Vs. CST, reported in 1994 UPTC, 130, M/s Indra Steel Private Ltd., Ghaziabad Vs. CST, reported in (1995) 21 STR 25, M/s Gaurav Traders Vs. CST, reported in (2002) 35 STR, 116 held that the exemption against the declaration forms can not be refused unless the forms is found to be forged or has been obtained as a result of collusion between the parties.  In the present case, no case has been made out that the forms on the basis of which exemption has been claimed were forged or have been obtained as a result of collusion. In this view of the matter, Tribunal has rightly allowed the exemption against the alleged Forms 3 C(2) and 3 C (5).

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

Dt.03.01.20006

R./


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.