Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Commissioner Trade Tax v. M/S Chotey Lal Jai Prakash Arhati, Bulandshahar - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 1281 of 1999 [2006] RD-AH 2919 (8 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).


Court no. 55

Trade Tax Revision no.  1281Of 1999.


Trade Tax Revision no.  1282Of 1999.


Trade Tax Revision no.  1284Of 1999.

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


M/S Chotey Lal Jai Prakash Arhati, Bulandshahar. ... Opp. Party.

Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.

These three revisions under Section 11 of U. P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act') are directed against the order of Tribunal dated 20.08.1999, by which, the Tribunal has rejected the appeals filed by the Commissioner of Trade Tax for the assessment years 1981-82, 1982-83 and 1984-85 under the Central Sales Tax Act.

Dealer/Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as "the Dealer") claimed to have made purchases of Gur for Ex- U. P. Principal.  On the purchases of Gur, tax was paid, but it was claimed that the delivery of the goods was given at its business premises at Jahangirabad within the State of U. P. to the Ex- U. P. Principal, thus, it was intra-state sales.  Assessing Authority on the basis of Mandi Gate Pass, which was issued in favour of Ex- U. P. Principal, treated such sales as intr-State sales and levied tax under the Central Sales Tax.  Appeals filed by the dealer, were allowed and the tax levied on such sales were deleted.  The Commissioner of Trade Tax filed appeals before the Tribunal, which were dismissed.

Heard learned Standing Counsel.

I have perused the order of the Tribunal and the authorities below.  The Tribunal and the First Appellate Authority have held that the delivery of the goods have been given inside the State of U. P. at its own business premises.  Both the authorities held that there was no material that the goods were dispatched by the dealer outside the State of U. P.   Merely in the Mandi Gate Pass, name of the Ex- U. P. Principal was mentioned, the claim of the dealer that the delivery of the goods were given inside the State of U. P., can not be disputed.  Findings of the Tribunal and the authorities below are the findings of fact and needs no interference.

In the result, all the above three revisions fail, and are, accordingly, dismissed.




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


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 |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.