Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

THE COMMISSIONER, TRADE TAX, U.P. LUCKNOW versus S/S. BENARA UDYOG PVT. LTD.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


The Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P. Lucknow v. S/S. Benara Udyog Pvt. Ltd. - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 533 of 1997 [2006] RD-AH 2886 (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.  533 Of 1997.

AND

Trade Tax Revision no.  537 Of 1997.

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

Vs

S/S Benara Udyog Pvt. Ltd., Agra. ... Opp. Party.

Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.

These two revisions under Section 11 of U. P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act') are directed against the order of Tribunal dated 16.11.1996 relating to assessment years 1988-89 and 1989-90 both under the Central Sales Tax Act.

Dealer/Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as "the Dealer") had opened a Branch Office at Bombay on 15.7.1988 for which, given information to the Assessing Officer on 29.10.1988 vide receipt no. 193422.  The Branch Office at Bombay was also registered with Maharashtra Sales Tax Act under the Central Sales Tax Act.  Dealer claimed to have dispatched the goods to its Bombay Branch Office, which were subsequently sold by Bombay Branch.  The Assessing Authority rejected the claim of stock transfer on the ground that the sale bills were issued to the purchasing parties after 15-20 days from the receipt of the goods.  It had also been held that one Sri T. V. Ramaswami who was the employee of M/S Central Automobile Pvt. Ltd. was looking after the Branch Office of the dealer.  It was also found that the purchaser had made payment directly to the Agra Office.  Tribunal held that the aforesaid reasons given by the Assessing Authority was not sufficient to reject the stock transfer.  Tribunal held that no case has been made out that the goods were directly sent to the purchaser in pursuance of any prior order.  I do not find any error in the order of the Tribunal.  Findings of the Tribunal are the findings of fact based on material on record.

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

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.