Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

M/S KHURANA ENTERPRISES, FARUKH NAGAR, GHAZIABAD. 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 Khurana Enterprises, Farukh Nagar, Ghaziabad. v. Commissioner, Trade Tax U.P. Lucknow - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 50 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 1947 (7 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. 50 of 2007.

AND

TRADE TAX REVISION NO. 51 of 2007.

M/S Khurana Enterprises, Farukh Nagar, Ghaziabad.    Applicant

      Versus

The Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P. Lucknow.                                    Opp.Party.

Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

With the consent of both the parties, the present revision are being disposed of at the stage of admission.

Present two revisions under Section 11 of U.P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as "Act") are directed against the order of the Tribunal dated 10th January, 2007 relating to the assessment year 2006-2007 by which the Tribunal has directed the release of the seized goods of Vehicle no. UP-14-J-7355 on deposit of Rs. 1,40,100/- towards security in cash and goods of Vehicle No. UP-14-J-8054 on deposit of Rs. 1,46,600/- towards security in cash.

Admittedly, the Trade Tax Officer, Mobile Squad, checked the goods inside the State of U.P. at Ghaziabad. From the perusal of the show cause notice, it appears that the bills relating to the goods were produced, which were issued by the applicant. The goods have been seized on the basis of the statement of the driver who appears to have alleged that the goods have been transported from Delhi. The claim of the applicant is that the goods have not been imported from Delhi and have been sold by the applicant against two bills, which were produced. The applicant is a registered dealer under the U.P. Trade Tax Act.

In my view the disputed question of fact can appropriately be adjudicated in a penalty proceeding. The seizure proceeding is a summary proceeding and, therefore, it is not necessary to go into the disputed question of fact. However, on the facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the fact that the applicant is a registered dealer, it would be in the interest of justice to change the nature of the security. Authority concerned is directed to release the goods on furnishing of security demanded by the Tribunal in the form other than cash or bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the officer concerned.

With the aforesaid observations, both the revisions are disposed of.

Dated.07.02.2007.

VS.


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.