Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

THE COMMISSIONER OF TRADE TAX, LUCKNOW versus S/S SANJAI OIL & FLOUR MILL, ALIGARH

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


The Commissioner Of Trade Tax, Lucknow v. S/S Sanjai Oil & Flour Mill, Aligarh - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 1102 of 1999 [2006] RD-AH 2880 (7 February 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.  1102 Of 1999.

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

Vs

M/S Sanjay Oil & Floor Mill, Aligarh. ... Opp. Party.

Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.

Present revision under Section 11 of U. P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act') is directed against the order of Tribunal dated 07.04.1999 relating to assessment year 1990-91 under the U. P. Trade Tax Act.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

Learned Standing Counsel submitted that the Tribunal has accepted the explanation of the dealer without dealing with the contents of Exbt. 2 and 4 and without giving any reason for acceptance of the explanation.  He further submitted that the dealer could not file Forms for claim of concessional rate of tax for the turnover of Rs.1,11,750/- and Rs.1,14,153/-.   Tribunal accepted the claim of concessional rate of tax by observing that the Forms were filed before the First Appellate Authority and the Photostat copy of the application under Section 12-B was filed and no objection had been raised by the State Representative.  He submitted that the perusal of the order of First Appellate Authority shows that there is no discussion in the order about the filing of application under Section 12-B and Forms.  He further submitted that in case if the Forms would have been filed before the First Appellate Authority, the same had not been accepted then the application under Section 12-B should have been filed before the Tribunal and the Tribunal in the case preferred to accept the application under Section 12-B then opportunity of rebuttal should be allowed against the Assessing Authority, but in the present case, Tribunal has not adjudicated the issue in accordance to law.  Learned Counsel for the dealer submitted that with regard to Exbt. 2 and 4, explanation was given before the Assessing Officer.  He submitted that the entries in Exbt. 2 and 4 were in the nature of debit and credit and is not relating to the suppressed purchases of sales and the Tribunal on a consideration, accepted the explanation of the dealer.  With regard to the Forms, he fairly is not able to substantiate the reasoning given by the Tribunal.

Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the orders of Tribunal and the authorities below.  Tribunal is the last court of fact, therefore, while accepting the explanation, it should consider the reasons given by the Assessing Authority and the explanation of the dealer and reasons for acceptance of the explanation.  Assessment order shows that the details of Exbt. 2 and 4 are mentioned in the assessment order.  Tribunal has not considered the entries of Exbt. 2 and 4 and have not considered the reasons given by the Assessing Authority for drawing adverse inference and explanation of the dealer and without giving any reason, accepted the explanation in a laconic manner.  In the circumstances, order of Tribunal is vitiated.  With regard to claim of benefit of concessional rate of tax on the turnover of Rs.1,11,750/- and Rs.1,14,153/-, the observations of the Tribunal appears to be incorrect.  Perusal of order of First Appellate Authority shows that there is no discussion about the filing of application under Section 12-B and the Forms.  However, in case if the Forms have been filed before the First Appellate Authority and the same has not been accepted, Tribunal can only admit those Forms  on the application under Section 12-B.  Admittedly, the application under Section 12-B in original had not been filed and only Photostat copy of the application was produced before the Tribunal.  On the basis of the Photostat copy of the application under Section 12-B, Tribunal could not admit the Forms, which claimed to have been filed before the First Appellate Authority.  In the circumstances, matter requires reconsideration by the Tribunal.

In the result, revision is allowed.  Order of Tribunal dated 07.04.1999 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal to decide the appeal afresh in the light of observations made above.

Dt:07.02.2006.

MZ/-


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.