Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

COMMISSIONER, TRADE TAX, LUCKNOW versus S/S HARI KRIPA TRADERS, JALAUN

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Commissioner, Trade Tax, Lucknow v. S/S Hari Kripa Traders, Jalaun - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 1210 of 2004 [2006] RD-AH 4838 (1 March 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

Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J

Heard Learned Standing Counsel.

By the impugned order, Tribunal has confirmed the order of the first appellate authority allowing the benefit against Form III-C (2) relating to the transactions of Rs. 13,66,750/-. Dealer had made purchases for Rs.13,66,750/- from one M/S Mukesh Trading Company, Jalaun and for the claim of exemption furnished Form III-C (2). The claim of exemption has been denied by the assessing authority on the ground that the proper turnover has not been disclosed by M/S Mukesh Trading Company, Jalaun and it appears that the signature on the registration form and in the declaration form was different. Both the appellate authorities have allowed the claim of exemption on the ground that it was not found that the said form was forged and have not been issued by M/S Mukesh Trading Company, Jalaun. Merely because the said transaction has not been disclosed by M/S Mukesh Trading Company, Jalaun in the return. The claim of exemption against Form III-C (2) issued by M/S Mukesh Trading Company, Jalaun, which was not found forged, cannot be denied. It is settled principle of law that the exemption cannot be denied against the Form to the party who has received the Form bonafidely unless the said Form is found to be forged or obtained as a result of collusion. In the present case, no case for interference is made out.

Revision is devoid of any merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.

Dated.01.03.2006.

VS.1210/2004.


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.