Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

THE COMMISSIONER, TRADE TAX, U.P. LUCKNOW versus S/S SINDH MEDICAL STORE AGENCIES, BEGUMPUL MEERUT

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 Sindh Medical Store Agencies, Begumpul Meerut - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION DEFECTIVE No. 143 of 1999 [2006] RD-AH 3171 (10 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.  (143) Of 1999.

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

Vs

M/S Sindh Medical Store, Meerut. ... 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 10.09.1998 relating to assessment years 1990-91 under the U. P. Trade Tax Act

Dealer/Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as "the Dealer") was carrying on the business of manufacture and sale of medicines and on the termination of Distributorship, medicines had been returned to the Ex-U.P. party from whom they were purchased.  Assessing Authority levied tax on such medicines treating it as a sale on the ground that the goods had been returned beyond six months.  In appeal, tax has been deleted.  In appeal filed by the Commissioner of Trade Tax, Tribunal has confirmed the order of the First Appellate Authority.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

I do not find any error in the order of the Tribunal.  Return of goods by the dealer to the selling party, is not in dispute.  In my opinion, in such circumstances, rule 44 is not applicable.  Rule 44 is applicable in a case where the sale of the goods is included in the gross turnover and on the return of the goods, seller claimed deduction.  In the present case, goods have been returned by the dealer to the selling dealer and had never been sold by the dealer and no deduction from the gross turnover was claimed.  In this view of the matter, Assessing Authority had erred in treating the goods returned as a sale and levying the tax, which have been rightly deleted by the First Appellate Authority and the Tribunal.

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

Dt:10.02.2006.

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.