Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

COMMISSIONER TRADE TAX versus S/S A.M.C. COATED FABRICKS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Commissioner Trade Tax v. S/S A.M.C. Coated Fabricks - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 1324 of 2004 [2006] RD-AH 5704 (9 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.1324 OF 2004

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

Versus

S/S A.M.C. Coated Fabricks Sector-9, Nodia.  ... .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 18.10.2003 relating to the assessment year 1995-96, by which Tribunal has affirmed the order of first appellate authority deleting the penalty levied under section 15-A (1) (o) of the Act.

Brief facts of the case are that the vehicle was intercepted by Trade Tax Officer, Mobile Squad, Noida while the goods was in transit from Delhi to Noida. At the time of checking, it was found that the documents were relating to 3000 Kg. of Calcium Carbonate while on physical verification, goods loaded was found PVC Resin. On account of difference in the goods, goods were seized and subsequently, penalty proceedings under section 15-A (1) (o) of the Act was initiated. Dealer contended that selling party was dealing both in Calcium Carbonate and PVC Resin and the appearance of both the goods were alike and both were white in appearance and by mistake of illiterate employee instead of Calcium Carbonate, PVS Resin was loaded. It was further contended that Calcium Carbonate is raw material of the dealer/opposite party (hereinafter referred to as "Dealer") for which order was placed.  Assessing authority had not accepted the plea and levied the penalty under section 15-A (1) (o) of the Act. First appellate authority accepted the plea of the dealer and set aside the penalty. Tribunal confirmed the order of the Tribunal. Finding of the Tribunal is finding of fact, which is based on material on record and can not be said perverse and without any material.  No question of law is involved.

In the result, revision fails and is accordingly, dismissed.

Dt.09.03.2006

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.