Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

M/S SHRI GANESH TRADING COMPANY versus THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


M/S Shri Ganesh Trading Company v. The Addl. Commissioner-I, Trade Tax Aligarh Zone & Another - WRIT TAX No. 907 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 11604 (10 July 2007)

 

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

CJ's Court.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.907 of 2007

M/s. Shri Ganesh Trading Company, Khair District Aligarh, Through its Proprietor Shri Ashok Kumar son of Shri Jagdish Parsad R/o Mohalla Harnarayan, Khair District Aligarh.

        ................Petitioner

Vs.

1. The Additional Commissioner-1, Trade Tax, Aligarh Zone, Aligarh.

2. The Asstt. Commissioner (Assessment) Trade Tax, Sector-1, Aligarh.

       .............Respondents

CORAM: Hon'ble H.L. Gokhale, CJ.

Hon'ble R.K. Agrawal, J.

Date:10.7.2007.

Sri N.R. Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner.

Sri B.K. Pandey, Standing Counsel, for the Respondents.

Oral Judgement (Per: H.L. Gokhale, CJ.)

1. Heard Shri N.R. Kumar, in support of this writ petition and Mr. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the State of U.P., who appears for the Respondents.

2. The assessment of the petitioner for the Assessment Year 2000-01, is sought to be reopened for the alleged escapement of the tax. A notice has been served on the petitioner. The case of the petitioner is that earlier the Assessing Officer had taken a view that there was no element of sale between the petitioner and the foreign party, to whom the stock of paddy was supposed to have been despatched. Subsequently, the Additional Commissioner, appears to have taken the view that one of the factors, which goes against the petitioner, is filing of Form-H, which records the event of sale and, therefore, he has directed reopening and a notice for reopening has been issued by Respondent no.2-Assistant Commissioner (Assessment).

3. Mr. Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that there is no case for reopening. He further submits that the petitioner is an Agent of the party outside the India, and filing of Form-H should not be taken as a factor  of construing  that there is a sale  between the petitioner and the parties outside the India.

4. In our view, these are all factors, which will be considered by Respondent no.2/Assistant Commissioner, who has given a notice for reopening the assessment. We however, record and observe that the Assistant Commissioner (Assessment) will decide the notice on its own merit, without being influenced by any observations made by the Additional Commissioner. All submissions of the petitioner will be open before the Assistant Commissioner. Inasmuch as Respondent no.2/Assistant Commissioner had accepted the submission of the petitioner earlier, we direct the Assistant Commissioner by further directing that in the event the decision, on account of reopening, is against the petitioner, it will not be acted upon for a period of four weeks from the date a copy of the order is served on the petitioner.

5. The writ petition stands disposed of.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    

Dt/-10.7.2007

RKK/- Chief Justice

R.K. Agrawal, J.


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.