Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

THE COMMISSIONER TRADE TAX U.P. LKO. versus S/S RAM SAFE INDUSTRIES, MEERUT

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 Ram Safe Industries, Meerut - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION DEFECTIVE No. 125 of 1999 [2006] RD-AH 2442 (31 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.(125) OF 1999

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

Versus

S/S Ram Safe Industries, Meerut.   .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 07.09.1998 relating to the assessment year 1985-86.

Assessing authority initiated the penalty proceeding under section 10-A of Central Sales Tax Act on the ground that dealer/opposite party (hereinafter referred to as "Dealer") had purchased cooler body and cooler kit from outside the State of U.P. and issued Form C  in respect thereof, while dealer was not registered for the aforesaid two items under Central Sales Tax Act. Before the assessing authority, dealer contended that vide receipt no.149384 dated 31.08.1982, it had applied for the amendment in the registration certificate and for the addition of the aforesaid two items. Assessing authority had levied the penalty on the ground that the dealer could not produce the copy of the receipt and the application. Dealer filed first appeal before the first appellate authority. It appears that the copy of the receipt no.149843 dated 30.09.1982 was produced but the first appellate authority has not accepted the claim on the ground that it is not clear from the receipt that any application for the addition of the aforesaid two items was given. Dealer filed second appeal before the Tribunal. Tribunal allowed the appeal and set aside the penalty on the ground that dealer had given application vide receipt no.149483 dated 30.09.1982 for the amendment in the registration certificate and further application was given on 01.12.1982 but the same could not be disposed by the assessing authority. Tribunal further held that the dealer had issued Form C under the bonafide belief and there was no mis-representation on the part of the dealer.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Learned Standing Counsel submitted that before the assessing authority, dealer could not produce any copy of the receipt and the application by which dealer sought amendment in the registration certificate and the addition of cooler body and cooler kit. He submitted that without giving any opportunity of the verification of the said receipts from the record, Tribunal has erred in accepting the claim of the dealer on the basis of the copy of the receipt. Learned counsel for the dealer relied upon the order of the Tribunal.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I find substance in the argument of learned Standing Counsel. Admittedly, the copy of the receipt and the application, by which dealer had sought amendment and addition in the registration certificate have not been produced before the assessing authority. Thus, before accepting the claim of the dealer on the basis of the receipt no.149483 dated 30.09.1982, opportunity should be given to the assessing authority.  Under section 12-B of the Act after admitting the additional evidence, it is necessary to provide opportunity to the assessing authority to rebut the same but the perusal of the order of the Tribunal shows that no such opportunity was given by the Tribunal to the assessing authority. In these circumstances, order of the Tribunal is vitiated and liable to be set aside. On the facts and circumstances of the case, I feel that it would be appropriate that the matter may go back to the assessing authority, where dealer may produce the copy of the receipt, by which amendment and the addition in the registration certificate  was sought. Assessing authority may verify the contents of the receipt from the record and decide the issue involved afresh.

In the result, revision is allowed. Order of the Tribunal dated 07.09.1998 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the assessing authority to decide the penalty proceeding afresh in the light of the observations made above.

Dt.31.01.2006

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.