Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

THE COMMISSIONER ,TRADE TAX, U.P. LUCKNOW versus S/S STAR PAPER MILLS LTD.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


The Commissioner ,Trade Tax, U.P. Lucknow v. S/S Star Paper Mills Ltd. - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 1097 of 2000 [2007] RD-AH 1224 (18 January 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

COURT NO.22

TRADE TAX REVISION NO.1097 OF 2000

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

Versus

S/S Star Paper Mills Ltdd., Saharanpur.   .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 13.04.2000 relating to the assessment year 1987-88 under the U.P. Trade Tax Act.

Heard Learned Standing Counsel.

By the impugned order, Tribunal has confirmed the order of the first appellate authority. The dispute relates to the taxability of Hassian cloth, which was used as packing material in packing the manufactured paper and the refund of the excess amount. Assessing authority levied the tax on the Hassian cloth on the ground that it has been used in the packing of the manufactured paper.  The refund of the excess amount has been refused by the assessing authority on the ground that it was realised from the customers and according to the provisions of section 29A (3) of the Act it should be refunded to the purchaser. The claim of the dealer was that Hassian cloth was used in the packing of paper and no price was charged for Hassian cloth. It was submitted that there was no express or implied contract for the Hassian cloth. With regard to the refund it was submitted that by issuing credit voucher amount has been refunded to the purchaser inasmuch as no rule was framed prior to 1993 for the refund of the amount. Both the aforesaid pleas have been accepted by the first appellate authority as well as by the Tribunal.

Learned Standing Counsel is not able to show any error in the order of the Tribunal. No interference is called for.

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

Dt.18.01.2007

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.