Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

M/S SUNDER LAL MITTAL versus THE COMMISSIONER OF TRADE TAX, LUCKNOW

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


M/S Sunder Lal Mittal v. The Commissioner Of Trade Tax, Lucknow - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION DEFECTIVE No. 620 of 1999 [2006] RD-AH 673 (10 January 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.(620)  OF 1999

M/s Sunder Lal Mittal. ....Applicant

Versus

The 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 06.07.1999 for the assessment year 1986-87, by which Tribunal has rejected the application under section 22 of the Act.

Applicant was engaged in the business of refining of used oil. The used oil had been purchased from unregistered dealer. Assessing authority had taxed the used oil under section 3-AAAA of the Act treating it covered under the entry "Old discarded and obsolete....." The matter came up for consideration before the Tribunal in appeal.  Tribunal vide order dated 28.12.1998 relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of CST Vs. S/s Industrial Lubricants, reported in 1984 UPTC, 1101 upheld the levy of tax under section 3-AAAA of the Act. Applicant has also argued before the Tribunal that in the earlier year, Tribunal has deleted the tax levied under section 3-AAAA of the Act.  This submission of the applicant has also been considered by the Tribunal while deciding the appeal. Thereafter, applicant moved an application under section 22 of the Act for the rectification of the order on the ground that used oil is oil and was not covered under the entry "Old discarded and obsolete....." and, therefore, it was not liable to tax under section 3-AAAA of the Act. Tribunal by the impugned order rejected the application.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

I do not find any error in the order of Tribunal. Under section 22 of the Act mistake apparent on the face of record can only be rectified. The issue which requires investigation, argument, investigation of fact and is debatable, is outside the purview of section 22 of the Act. Reliance is placed on the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Concrete Spun Pipe Works Vs. The Sales Tax Officer, Sector-V, Kanpur, reported in 24 STC, 48.

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

Dt.10.01.2006

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.