Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

THE COMMISSIONER ,TRADE TAX, U.P. LUCKNOW versus ANITA TRADERS , COAL DEPOT,

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


The Commissioner ,Trade Tax, U.P. Lucknow v. Anita Traders , Coal Depot, - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 1081 of 2000 [2006] RD-AH 2295 (30 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

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 04.02.1999 relating to assessment year 1990-91 under the U. P. Trade Tax Act.

The dispute relates to the rate of tax on the Brass Rod.  Assessing Authority levied tax @ 8% treating the Brass Rod as an unclassified item.  Claim of dealer was that the Brass Rod is a "Alloy" and therefore, covered under the entry "All Kinds of Ore, metals, Scraps and Alloys including sheets and Circles used in the manufacture of brass-wares, except those included in any other entry or any other notification issued under the U. P. Sales Tax Act, 1948" of Notification no. ST-II/1447/XI-10(1)-80 dated 30.6.1990 @ 4%.  In the First Appeal, claim of dealer has been accepted.  Commissioner of Trade Tax filed appeal, which has been dismissed by the Tribunal.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

I have perused the order of Tribunal and the authorities below.  Brass is undoubtedly "Alloy".  Learned Standing Counsel is not able to show that the Brass Rod is elsewhere notified under any of the Notification.  Thus, the view taken by the First Appellate Authority as well as the Tribunal that the brass-Rod is covered under the entry "Alloys" of Notification no. ST-II/1447/XI-10(1)-80 dated 30.6.1990 and taxable @ 4% is up held.

In the result, revision fails, and is accordingly, dismissed.

Dt:30.01.2006.

MZ/1081/2000.


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.