Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

M/S. ALOK UDYOG, COLLIE BAZAR, KANPUR THR. ITS SOLE PROP. versus COMMISSIONER OF TRADE TAX, U.P. LUCKNOW

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


M/S. Alok Udyog, Collie Bazar, Kanpur Thr. Its Sole Prop. v. Commissioner Of Trade Tax, U.P. Lucknow - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 66 of 2000 [2006] RD-AH 5907 (10 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.66 of 2000.

M/S Alok Udyog, 76/546 Coolie Bazar, Kanpur.           Applicant

Versus

The Commissioner, 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 18th March, 1999 relating to the assessment year 1985-86.

During the year under consideration, applicant had sold H.R. Sheet and C.R.Coil against four bills for Rs.5,65,280/- to M/S Triveni Metal Tube Limited, Unnao and received Form 3-B no.A-083705 from the said party for full exemption. On the basis of the said Form, exemption was claimed during the assessment proceeding. Assessing authority in the original assessment order passed under Section 7 read with Rule 41 accepted the claim of exemption against the aforesaid Form 3-B. Proceeding under section 21of the Act was initiated against the applicant on the basis of the information received that M/S Triveni Metal Tube Limited, Unnao was issued recognition certificate for H.R sheet and C.R. Coil and not for the items for which Form 3-B was issued. On the basis of the aforesaid information, exemption was withdrawn on the turnover of Rs.5,65,280/- against Form 3-B no. A-083705. Applicant filed appeal before the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial), which has been dismissed. Second appeal filed by the applicant has also been dismissed by the Tribunal.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that though the claim of the applicant is that M/S Triveni Metal Tube Limited, Unnao was holding recognition certificate for H.R. Sheet and C.R. Coil and the items sold by the applicant was the same but without going into this controvery, it is submitted that the applicant has received the Form 3-B under the bonafide believe and the said Form has not been found forged and obtained as a result of collusion between the parties and, therefore, the claim of exemption against the said Form cannot be denied. If the case of the department is that M/S Triveni Metal Tube Limited, Unnao had issued the Form 3-B in respect of the items for which it was not entitled, necessary action may be taken against the said Firm but the claim of exemption to the applicant cannot be denied against Form 3-B. Learned Standing Counsel relied upon the order of the Tribunal.

I find substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the applicant. Merely because the revenue is of the view that M/S Triveni Metal Tube Limited, Unnao was not entitled to issue Form 3-B in respect of the items sold by the applicant inasmuch as items were not mentioned in their recognition certificate the claim of exemption against the Form 3-B issued by M/S Triveni Metal Tube Limited, Unnao cannot be denied to the applicant. Under the Act and Rules, for the claim of exemtion, applicant was required to furnish the requisite Form, which the applicant has submitted. It was not expected from the applicant to enquire whether the items were mentioned in the recognotion certificate or not. It is not the case of the Revenue that the Form was forged or obtained as a result of collusion between the parties. In the circumstances, denial of exemption is wholly unjustified. Reliance is placed on the decisions in the case of Bharat Iron Stores Versus Commissioner of Sales Tax reported in 1994 UPTC, 130, Indra Steels Pvt. Ltd., Versus Commissioner of Sales Tax reported in 1995 UPTC, 4 and M/S Gaurav Traders Versus Commissioner of Trade Tax reported in 1996 (9) NTN, 262.

In the result, revision is allowed. Order of the Tribunal is set aside.

Dated.10.03.2006.

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.