Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

THE COMMISSIONER, TRADE TAX UP LKO. versus S/S HINDUSTAN ENTERPRISES

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


The Commissioner, Trade Tax Up Lko. v. S/S Hindustan Enterprises - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION DEFECTIVE No. 1554 of 1998 [2006] RD-AH 5181 (3 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.(1554) OF 1998

AND

TRADE TAX REVISION NO.(1578) OF 1998

AND

TRADE TAX REVISION NO.(1582) OF 1998

AND

TRADE TAX REVISION NO.(1584) OF 1998

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

Versus

S/S Hindustan Enterprises, Allahabad.   .Opp.party

***************

Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.

These four revisions under Section 11 of U.P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as "Act") are directed against the order of Tribunal dated 02.05.1998 for the assessment years 1985-86, 86-87, 87-88 and 88-89.

Dealer/opposite party (hereinafter referred to as "Dealer") was engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of electric components, plastic sheet, telephone exchange etc. and was registered under the Central Sales Tax in respect of Plastic Granules, Rubber and Raw Material, Machinery Parts and its Accessories, Electric Woven and its Tools, Extusion Machine, Cooking Machine and its parts, Punching Machine and its parts.  For the assessment year 1985-86 dealer had purchased Wire, Plastic Wire, Nickel and Silver Sheet, Plastic Powder, Brass and PVC Sheets and Brass Sheet in respect of which Form ''C' were issued. For the assessment year 1986-87 dealer had purchased Nut and Screw, E-Ping, Steel Sheet, Nickel and Silver Sheet and Brass and PVC Sheets and in respect of which Form ''C' were issued. For the assessment year 1987-88, dealer had purchased Brass Sheet, Brass and PVC Sheets, Nut and Screw, Spring Steel and Steel Plates, Nickel and Silver Sheet and in respect of Form ''C' were issued. For the assessment year 1988-89 dealer had purchased Brass Sheet, Plastic Powder, Spring Steel, Screw, Nickel and Silver Sheet, Wire Cable and P.B.Sheet, in respect of which Form ''C were issued. Assessing authority levied the penalty under section 10-A of the Act on the ground that the aforesaid items, purchased from outside the State of U.P., in respect of which Form ''C' were issued were not covered under the items for which dealer was registered under Central Sales Tax Act. Dealer filed appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals). For the assessment years 1985-86, 86-87 and 87-88 Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the penalty orders while for the assessment year 1988-89 appeal of the dealer was dismissed  Commissioner of Trade Tax filed appeals before the Tribunal for the assessment years 1985-86, 86-87 and 87-88. Dealer filed second appeal before the Tribunal for the assessment year 1988-89. All the four appeals have been decided by common order. Tribunal allowed the appeals of the dealer for the assessment year 1988-89 and has rejected the appeals of the Commissioner of Trade Tax for the assessment years 1985-86, 86-87 and 87-88.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Learned Standing Counsel submitted that disputed items, which were purchased from outside the State of U.P. and in respect of which Form ''C' were issued, dealer was not registered under Central Sales Tax Act. I do find any substance in the argument of learned Standing Counsel. Tribunal held that plastic powder are covered under the plastic granules and the other items are raw material intended for the use in the manufacturing of electronic components and telephone exchange. Learned Standing Counsel is not able to assail the findings recorded by the Tribunal and is not able to show that the items, which had been purchased were not raw material of the manufactured goods. Admittedly, dealer was registered under the Central Sales Tax Act for the "raw material" and, therefore, there is no error in the order of the Tribunal in concluding that the items which were purchased from outside the State of U.P. in respect of which Form ''C' was issued, dealer was registered under the Central Sales Tax Act. All the four revisions are devoid of any merit.

In the result, all the four revisions fail and accordingly, dismissed.

Dt.03.03.2006

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.