Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

THE COMMISSIONER, TRADE TAX, U.P. LUCKNOW versus S/S SOMANI WIRE & FORGINGS 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 Somani Wire & Forgings Ltd. - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 1111 of 1997 [2006] RD-AH 4524 (24 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.1111 of 1997.

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

Versus

M/S Somani Wire & Forgings Ltd, Kanpur.  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 27th May, 1997 relating to the assessment year 1993-94 by which the Tribunal has deleted the penalty levied under section 15-A (1) (l) of the Act.

Heard learned Standing Counsel. List has been revised. No one appears on behalf of the opposite party.

Penalty under section 15-A (1) (l) of the Act has been levied on the ground that the dealer/opposite party (hereinafter referred to as "Dealer") had attempted to get Form 31 endorsed from the check post without goods being available for verification and Form 31 was misused and wrong declaration was made in Form 31. First appeal filed by the dealer was dismissed. Dealer filed second appeal before the Tribunal. Tribunal by the impugned order, deleted the penalty on the ground that no action has been taken against the selling party and the matter is pending before the Criminal Court. Learned Standing Counsel submitted that the Tribunal has deleted the penalty on irrelevant ground without adjudicating the real issue involved and the grounds taken by the assessing authority for the levy of penalty.

I have perused the order of the Tribunal and the authorities below.

Tribunal has not considered the grounds taken by the assessing authority for the levy of penalty and has not adjudicated the real issue. Tribunal should consider whether the grounds taken by the assessing authority are correct and whether the penalty under section 15-A (1) (l) of the Act is leviable or not.

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

Dated.24.02.2006.

VS.


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.