Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

THE COMMISSIONER, TRADE TAX, U.P. LUCKNOW versus S/S B.T.C. INDUSTRIES PVT. 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 B.T.C. Industries Pvt. Ltd. - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 6 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 1233 (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.  6 of 2007.

Commissioner of  Trade Tax, U. P. Lucknow ... Revisionist.

Vs

S/S B.T.C. Industries Pvt. Ltd., Bareilly. ... 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 the Tribunal dated 07.12.2006 relating to the assessment year 2006-07, by which, the Tribunal has set aside the seizure and directed to release the goods on furnishing of security.

The brief facts of the case are that the dealer was involved in the manufacturing of M. S. Bars.  The dealer had a Factory situated at Kiccha, Udhamsingh Nagar, Uttaranchal.  The dealer has a Sale Depot in Village Muriya Mokarrampur, Baheri, Bareilly, which is registered under the U. P. Trade Tax Act as well as under the Central Sales Tax Act.  On 26.7.2006 in the mid night, the Trade Tax Officer (Mobile Squad) checked the Vehicle no. U. P. 25/5953 loaded with M. S. Bars of the various sizes.  On checking, Invoice no. 329 dated 26.7.2006 issued by the Sales Depot of the dealer was produced.  On verification, the goods were found in accordance to Sale Invoice.  However, the goods were detained and a Show-cause-notice was issued on the ground that the goods were brought from Uttaranchal avoiding the Check Post through Nadeli on the route of Baheri.  Alongwith the goods, builty were not available.  Subsequently, the goods were seized and directed to be released on furnishing of security at Rs.33,120/-  Dealer moved an application under the proviso of Section 13-A (6) of the Act before the Deputy Commissioner (Enforcement), Trade Tax, which has been rejected.  Dealer filed appeal before the Tribunal, which has been allowed by the impugned order and the goods were directed to be released without any security.  The Tribunal held that alongwith the goods bill no. 329 dated 26.7.2006 was available.  It is observed that the Transporter is authorized to transport the goods from any route, which is short.  It was told that the Transporter house was situated at Nadeli, therefore, the driver had transported the goods through Nadeli.  The Tribunal observed that no enquiry had been made whether the Transporter house was situated at Nadeli.  The Tribunal further observed that the goods were accompanied by the driver and were found entered in the books of account, hence, there was no violation of Section 28-A of the Act and the seizure of the goods has been held erroneous.

Heard learned Standing Counsel and Sri M. Manglik, learned Counsel for the opposite party/dealer. The record relating to the seizure of the goods has been produced during the course of hearing,  learned Counsel for the dealer has filed a Supplementary affidavit annexing the copies of Stock transfer memo and Form 31 which have been passed at the Check Post and also a chart showing the stock position at the Sale Depot to show that the goods were sold out of the stock of the Sale Depot and also to show that in the regular course of business, the goods were received by the Sale Depot from the Factory and such goods were imported through the Check Post against the Form 31.  Copy of the affidavit of the owner of the Transport Company Sri Khalil Ahmad filed before the Deputy Commissioner (Enforcement), Trade Tax has also been annexed in which it was stated that his Office and residence were at Nadeli which is near to Baheri.  

Learned Standing Counsel submitted that in fact, the goods were brought in side the State of U. P. from Uttaranchal avoiding the Check Post and the Invoice of Sale Depot had been provided to cover up the transaction and in case if, the goods would not have been checked, the entry of the goods would have been escaped and the tax would have been evaded.  

Learned Counsel for the dealer submitted that the seizure of the goods was based on presumption.  He submitted that the goods were being received by the Sale Depot in the regular course of business through the Check Post against Form 31.  He submitted that on 26.7.2006, there was a opening stock of 14.770 M. T. and 11.800 M. T. Bars were received from Kiccha Factory and the total stock available was 26.570 M.T and out of which, on 26.7.2006, 26.520 M. T. Bars was sold including the impugned goods.   He submitted that the Vehicle was checked alongwith the goods and at the time of checking, Invoice issued by the Sale Depot was available and such Invoice was duly recorded in the books of account, therefore, no inference could be drawn that the goods were brought directly from Uttaranchal avoiding the Check Post.  He submitted that this inference is without any basis.  He submitted that the finding recorded by the Tribunal is the finding of fact and should not be interfered with.

Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the order of Tribunal and the authorities below.  

I do not find any error in the order of the Tribunal.  Admittedly, when the goods were checked, Invoice of the Bareilly Sale Depot was available.  The goods were duly verifiable with the Invoice.  The inference drawn by the Officer concerned that the goods were brought from Kiccha Factory inside the State of U. P. avoiding the Check Post is based on no material and is wholly on surmises and conjectures.  Finding of the Tribunal in this regard, is the finding of fact which does not require any interference. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of the Tribunal is upheld.

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

Dt:18.01.2007.MZ/-


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.