Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

M/S. CITY COAL KAUWANALA, AURI MORE, ANPARA, SONEBHADRA versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


M/S. City Coal Kauwanala, Auri More, Anpara, Sonebhadra v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT TAX No. 690 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 7620 (12 April 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

Hon'ble Sushil Harkauli, J.

Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.

The petitioner is admittedly a dealer registered under the U.P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ''Act'). The petitioner has imported certain coal against two declaration forms provided under Section 28A of the Act, bearing Nos. 222415 of 2005 and 222416 of 2005. This coal has been detained by the officers of the U.P. Trade Tax Department on the ground that the vendor, which is shown in the purchase vouchers, did not have a branch at Singrauli and, therefore, purchase document appears to be suspicious.

There is no requirement of law that purchase from outside Uttar Pradesh must be made from a registered dealer.

It is not the case of the Department that the description or quantity of the coal being carried in the vehicle did not tally with the description or quantity mentioned in the two declaration forms which are issued by the Department itself. At the entry check post it was open to the departmental officers to tally the description or the quantity of the goods being carried in the vehicle with the description and quantity mentioned in the declaration forms.

Being a registered dealer, the petitioner is liable to account for the goods which the petitioner has imported against the declaration forms and the tax is leviable on the price at which these imported items are sold in Uttar Pradesh. The value of purchase is wholly irrelevant for the U.P. Trade Tax Department and equally the place of purchase or the dealer from whom goods have been purchased is irrelevant for the U.P. Trade Tax Department.

Prima facie, we find this detention to be a case of pure harassment of the petitioner by the officers of the U.P. Trade Tax Department.

There are four officers named in the detention order. Their names are as follows :

1. Sri Anil Dixit,

2.      Sanjay Kumar Misra,

3.      Sanjay Kumar, &

4.      F.V. Singh,

all Trade Tax Officers of Sonebhadra.

We direct the Standing Counsel to ensure that each of these four officers will furnish their explanation, on affidavit, for the above conduct and to show cause why this Court should not recommend their suspension and departmental action against them for this kind of conduct.

In the meantime the goods, which have been detained and which are covered by the two declaration forms, referred to above, shall be released by the respondents forthwith.

List this case immediately after three weeks for further orders.

Dated : 12.4.2006.

PG.

Writ No. 690 (Tax)-06.


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.