High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Maharani Agencies,1034,Mutthiganj, Allahabad v. Commissioner Of Trade Tax (Up) Lucknow - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 247 of 2002  RD-AH 16535 (10 October 2007)
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
TRADE TAX REVISION NO. 247 of 2002.
Maharani Agencies, 1034,Mutthiganj, Allahabad. Applicant
The Commissioner, Trade Tax,U.P., Lucknow. 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 16th February, 2002 relating to the assessment year, 1993-94.
The applicant claimed to be a commission agent of Raymond Cement Works and claimed to had sold cement on behalf of Raymond Cement Works. It was claimed that the freight was paid by the Company. In case, if the freight was paid by the applicant, credit note was issued by the Company in favour of the applicant. Assessing authority rejected the books of account mainly on the ground that the freight was paid by the applicant, but the same was not disclosed in the books of account. Assessing authority further held that in the Sultanpur Branch, purchases of 5452 bags of cement were only disclosed while 5692 bags were sold. The view of the assessing authority has been upheld in first appeal and by the Tribunal.
Heard Sri N.C. Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Nimai Dass, learned Standing Counsel.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the authorities below are wrong in saying that the freight was paid by the applicant. He submitted that where the freight was paid by the applicant, the same was reimbursed by way of credit note to the applicant. He submitted that in any view of the matter, none of the authorities have found that apart from the amount shown in the cash memo/bill any other amount had been received from the purchaser and, therefore, rejection of the sale turnover is wholly unjustified. He submitted that the freight may be relevant for the purposes of the consideration of purchase price, but so far as sale price is concerned, it does not make any difference. He further submitted that the purchases of 240 bags of cement in the Sultanpur Branch could not be shown as one bill for Rs.20,880/- was lost and this aspect of the matter has not been considered by the Tribunal. Learned Standing Counsel relied upon the order of the Tribunal.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the order of the Tribunal and the authorities below.
In my opinion, matter requires fresh consideration by the Tribunal. Tribunal is directed to examine whether the freight has been paid by the Company or by the applicant and in case, if the applicant has paid the freight whether the same has been reimbursed by the Company by issuing credit note Tribunal may also consider whether the freight has any affect on the sale price of the cement and whether apart from the amount mentioned in the bill/cash memo any other amount had been charged or received from the purchaser. Tribunal may also consider the consequence of non production of the cash memo for 240 bags in case of the sale from Sultanpur Branch.
In view of the above, revision is allowed in part. The order of the Tribunal is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal to decide the appeal afresh in the light of the observations made above.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.