Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

M/S. JWALA PRASAD SURAJBHAN versus COMMISSIONER OF TRADE TAX

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


M/S. Jwala Prasad Surajbhan v. Commissioner Of Trade Tax - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 241 of 1999 [2006] RD-AH 4982 (2 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

COURT NO.55

TRADE TAX REVISION NO.241 OF 1999

M/s Jwala Prasad Suraj Bhan. ....Applicant

Versus

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 16.04.1998 relating to the assessment year 1987-88, by which Tribunal has upheld the penalty under section 15-A (1) (c) of the Act.

Penalty under section 15-A (1)(c) of the Act has been levied on the ground that in the details submitted before the assessing authority, applicant had made wrong declaration of the goods and in place of matar declaration was made as Bornvilla/pichka matar/green matar and claimed exemption. The exemption was also allowed on the basis of the declaration given by the applicant but subsequently, on the receipt of the information from Mandi Samiti on the basis of the Mandi Gate Pass that the goods sold was Matar and not Bornvilla/pichka matar/green matar, proceedings under section 21 of the Act was initiated and it was found that in 9R, Satti Bahi  and invoice matar was mentioned. On this basis tax has been assessed  finally by the Tribunal on the turn over of Rs.5,51,000/- at Rs.24,244/- penalty has been levied on the ground that the applicant furnished incorrect particulars before the assessing authority. Tribunal has confirmed the penalty at 1.25 times of the tax. Minimum penalty leviable is 50%.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that by mistake of Munim description of the goods was wrongly mentioned while wrong particulars have not been furnished deliberately. He further submitted that the levy of penalty 1.25 times is excessive. I find some substances in the argument of the learned counsel for the applicant.  On the basis of the facts and circumstances of the case, levy of penalty is sustained.  However, it is reduced to the minimum amount leviable. Tribunal is directed to modify the quantum of penalty.

In the result, revision is allowed in part. Order of the Tribunal is set aside. Tribunal is directed to pass the order under section 11 (8) of the Act and modify the quantum of penalty to minimum penalty leviable.

Dt.02.03.2006

R./


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.