Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

M/S KISAN GRAMODYOG SAMITI, BHATTA, FATIMPUR versus THE COMMISSIONER OF TRADE TAX, U.P. LUCKNOW

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


M/S Kisan Gramodyog Samiti, Bhatta, Fatimpur v. The Commissioner Of Trade Tax, U.P. Lucknow - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 2601 of 2005 [2006] RD-AH 336 (5 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.   2601Of 2005.

M/S Kisan Gramodyuog Samiti, Muzaffarnagar. ... Applicant.

Vs

The Commissioner of Trade Tax, U. P. Lucknow. ...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 20.07.2005 relating to the assessment year 1998-99 under the U. P. Trade Tax Act, by which, the Tribunal has confirmed the order of the First Appellate Authority remanding back the matter to the Assessing Authority for afresh assessment.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that the remand of the case to the Assessing Authority to provide a fresh inning to adjudicate the matter, is illegal.  He submitted that the issue relates to the estimate of production, selling rate and the bricks used for personal purposes, which could be decided by the First Appellate Authority at its own stage on the basis of material available on record.  I find substance in the argument of learned Counsel for the applicant.  The First Appellate Authority instead of remanding back the matter could have adjudicated the issue  relating to the production of firing period, selling rate and bricks used for personal purposes on the basis of material on record.  The remand of the case just to provide a fresh inning to the Assessing Authority to adjudicate the issue afresh, is not justified.  

In the circumstances, revision is allowed.  Orders of Tribunal and the First Appellate Authority are set aside and the matter is remanded back to the First Appellate Authority to decide the appeal no.23/2001 for the assessment year 1998-99 afresh on the basis of material available on record.

Dt:05.01.2006.

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.