Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

M/S ADVANCE AGRO INTERNATIONAL THRU' MANAGER (ACCOUNTS) versus COMMISSIONER TRADE TAX, U.P. LUCKNOW

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


M/S Advance Agro International Thru' Manager (Accounts) v. Commissioner Trade Tax, U.P. Lucknow - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 35 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 1605 (1 February 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.35 OF 2007

AND

TRADE TAX REVISION NO.36 OF 2007

M/s Advance Agro International, Noida.       ....Applicant

Versus

Commissioner Trade Tax, U.P., Lucknow.   .Opp.party

Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.

These two revisions under Section 11 of U.P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as "Act") are directed against the order of Tribunal dated 04.01.2007 relating to the assessment year 2003-04 both under the U.P. Trade Tax Act as well as Central Sales Tax Act.

Applicant claimed that it was carrying on the business of manufacture and sale of agricultural implements and its parts. Agricultural implements and their parts are exempted to tax under U.P. Trade Tax Act. The case of the revenue was that during the year under consideration, applicant had imported tractor parts, machinery parts etc., which were not required to be used in the manufacturing of agricultural implements. When the applicant was asked to explain about the disposal of such goods imported against Form-31, it was explained that inadvertently in Form-31 tractor parts etc. had been mentioned. Assessing authority had not accepted the plea of the applicant and had estimated the turn over of tractor parts etc.  in both under the U.P. Trade Tax Act as well as under Central Sales Tax Act. Being aggrieved by the assessment orders, applicant filed appeals before the Joint Commissioner (Appeals), Noida, who allowed the appeal in part under U.P. Trade Tax Act and has dismissed the appeal under Central Sales Tax Act. Being aggrieved by the order, applicant filed two appeals before the Tribunal. Commissioner of Trade Tax has also filed the appeal against the order of Joint Commissioner (Appeals) under U.P. Trade Tax Act. Tribunal by the impugned order dismissed both the appeals filed by the applicant and has partly allowed the appeal of Commissioner of Trade Tax.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant had made the purchases from M/s Super Tractor Industries, Ludhiana, who are the manufacturer of the tractor parts and Linch Pin etc. Linch Pin was required to be used in the manufacturing of agricultural implements. He submitted that the orders were placed to the selling party for the purchases of Linch Pin and in the invoices were also issued for Linch Pin,while inadvertently in Form-31 tractor parts  and other items have been mentioned. He submitted that on the basis of the declaration form it can not be inferred that the applicant had imported tractor parts and other goods, which were not required in the manufacturing of agricultural implements and their parts.

I do not find any substance in the argument of learned counsel for the applicant. Fact on the record is that against declaration Form-31, applicant had imported tractor parts and other items, which were not required to be used in the manufacturing of agricultural implements etc. There is no reason to believe  that inadvertently in Form-31 tractor parts etc. have been mentioned. Findings of the Tribunal and the authorities below in this regard are finding of fact, which can not be interfered by this court. Moreover, in case, if apart from the tractor parts and other items, some other items, namely, Linch Pin etc., which was required in the manufacturing of agricultural implements  would be imported, the  goods would have been seized at the check post on the ground that different goods were being mentioned in Form-31. While in the present case, the goods relating to any transaction have been seized at the check post on the basis of the alleged discrepancies. In this view of the matter, claim of the applicant can not be accepted. Estimate of the turn over is based on the material imported against Form-31 and, therefore, it can not be said to be without any basis.

In the result, both the revisions fail and are accordingly, dismissed.

Dt.01.02.2007

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.