Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

THE COMMISSIONER TRADE TAX U.P. LUCKNOW versus ARVIND MOTORS BYE PASS ROAD FIROZABAD

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


The Commissioner Trade Tax U.P. Lucknow v. Arvind Motors Bye Pass Road Firozabad - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 1015 of 1999 [2007] RD-AH 154 (3 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. 1015 of 1999.

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

  Versus

M/S Arvind Motors, Firozabad. ... 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 05.04.1999 relating to the assessment year 1993-94.

During the year under consideration, dealer had purchased Chassis from M/S Scooter India, Lucknow against Form 3-A and sold the Vehicles after mounting bodies over it.  The tax had been levied on the purchases of Chassis under Section 3-AAAA of the Act on the ground that the same have not been sold in the same form and condition.  The Tribunal has accepted the plea of the dealer that the Chassis after mounting of bodies amounts to sale in the same form and condition and deleted the tax under Section 3-AAAA of the Act.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

Issue involved in the present revision is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax versus S/S Kumar Motors, Bareilly reported in 2004 UPTC page 1010.  In the said case, it has been held that the Chassis of Motor Vehicle and Motor Vehicle with body mounted over it are commercially two different commodities.  The mention of bodies, Chassis of Motor Vehicle in the same entry does not mean that they all constitute one commodity.  This Court accordingly held that the Chassis after mounted the body, cannot be said to have been sold in the same form and condition and the levy of tax under Section 3-AAAA of the Act has been held justified.

Respectfully following the aforesaid decision, the order of the Tribunal is up held and it is held that the Chassis is liable to tax under Section 3-AAAA of the Act.  The Tribunal is directed to pass appropriate order under Section 11 (8) of the Act.

In the result, revision is allowed.  Order of the Tribunal is set aside and it is held that the Chassis is liable to tax under Section 3-AAAA of the Act.  The Tribunal is directed to pass appropriate order under Section 11 (8) of the Act.

Dt:03.01.2007.

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.