Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


The Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P. Lucknow v. S/S Bhargava Book Depot - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION DEFECTIVE No. 382 of 1999 [2006] RD-AH 744 (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).




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


S/S Bhargava Book Depot, Varanasi.  ..... .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 05.12.1998 relating to the assessment year 1985-86, by which the Tribunal has confirmed the order of the first appellate authority cancelling the penalty levied under section 10-A of the Act.

Assessing authority had levied the penalty on the ground that the dealer/opposite party (hereinafter referred to as "Dealer") had issued Form C for making the purchases of paper, board and films, which have been used in the job work and publication for which they were not registered. First appellate authority allowed the appeal on the ground that the dealer had moved applications on 26.08.1981 and 12.07.1982 for the addition of paper, board, chemicals, plates and films etc. and therefore, it has been held that there was no element of misuse of Form C and, accordingly, penalty has been set aside. Commissioner of Trade Tax filed appeal before the Tribunal, which has been dismissed. Tribunal has held that the dealer had moved  applications for the addition of the items and, therefore, there was no misuse of Form C.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Learned Standing Counsel submitted that the assessing authority had levied the penalty under section 10-A of the Act on the ground that paper, board, films have been used in the job work  for which it was not registered. He submitted that both the first appellate authority as well as Tribunal have not considered whether applications moved by the dealer  were allowed and the additions have been permitted or not. He further submitted that it has not been considered that the goods in respect of which Form C have been issued, could not be used for job work and if it has been used for the job work there was violation. Learned counsel for the dealer relied upon the order of the Tribunal.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

I have perused the order of Tribunal and the authorities below.

I find substance in the argument of learned Standing Counsel. Perusal of the order of the Tribunal shows that  the Tribunal has not considered whether the applications, which have been filed by the dealer for the addition of the goods have been allowed or not. Tribunal has also not considered that if the goods were used in the job work; whether it amount to violation of the provisions of section 10-A of the Act. Thus, order of the Tribunal is vitiated and the matter requires reconsideration by the Tribunal.

In the result, revision is allowed. Order of the Tribunal dated 05.12.1998 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal to decide the appeal afresh in the light of the observations made above.




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


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 |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.