Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

THE COMMIOSNER TRADE TAX versus S/O PRAKASH ENTERPRISES

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


The Commiosner Trade Tax v. S/O Prakash Enterprises - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 1504 of 2000 [2007] RD-AH 2011 (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. 1504 of  2000.

AND

Trade Tax Revision no. 1505 of  2000.

AND

Trade Tax Revision no. 1506 of  2000.

AND

Trade Tax Revision no. 1507 of  2000.

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

Vs

M/S  Prakash Enterprises, Meerut. ... Opp. Party

Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.

These four revisions under Section 11 of U.P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as "Act") are directed against the order of Tribunal dated 17.08.2000 relating to the assessment years1992-93, 1993-94, 1994-95 and 1995-96 respectively.

Dealer/opposite party (hereinafter referred to as the "Dealer") claimed to be Printer.  Dispute relates to the supply of printing and supply of printed materials on the basis of contract to District Cooperative Federation Press, Bulandshahar which includes stationary etc.  Claim of the dealer was that the printing and supply of printed materials were in the nature of works contract and not the sale.  He submitted that the printing material which were printed and supplied were of no use of anyone else except for use of party for whom, they were printed and supplied.  Case of the Revenue was that the dealer had supplied printing material after using its own paper and Ink etc.  He submitted that the printed material was held commercial goods, therefore, such supply was the sale and liable to tax.  The Tribunal by the impugned order, accepted the claim of the dealer and held that the printing and supply of printed materials namely stationary etc. was in the nature of works contract and not the sale.  He relied upon the decisions of Apex Court and this Court in the cases of State of Tamil Nadu versus Anandam Viswanathan reported in (1989) 73 STC 1 1989 UPTC 920 (SC), State of Maharashtra versus Sarvodaya Printing Press Fine Art Printers reported in 1999 UPTC (SC) page 1114, M/S Sunder Printing Press versus C. S. T. reported in 1989 UPTC page 1212, Commissioner of Trade Tax versus Commercial Printing Press reported in 1984 UPTC page 1089, Commissioner of SalesTax versus M/S Eureka Printing Press reported in 1984 UPTC page 1135.  The Tribunal further held that the works contract which was in the nature of printing and supply of printed materials was not covered within the fifteen works contracts specified in the Notification no. ST-II-2399/X(195)-85-U.P. X-15/48-Order-87 dated 27.4.1987, therefore, it was not liable to tax under Section 3-F of the Act.  The Tribunal further observed that all the works contract were made taxable with effect from 1.3.1997 and the assessment year involved in the present revision are prior to 1.7.1997, therefore, works contract in the nature of printing and supply of printed materials are not liable to tax under Section 3-F of the Act in the year under consideration.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

I do not find any error in the order of the Tribunal.

The issue involved in the present revision is squarely covered by the decisions of Apex Court in the cases of State of Tamil Nadu versus Anandam Viswanathan (supra) and State of Maharashtra versus Sarvodaya Printing Press Fine Art Printers (supra) and the decisions of this Court in the cases of  M/S Sunder Printing Press versus C. S. T. (supra), Commissioner of Trade Tax versus Commercial Printing Press (supra), Commissioner of Trade Tax versus M/S Eureka Printing Press (supra) and the latest decision of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Trade Tax, U. P. versus S/S Modern Plastic Packing Products reported in (2005) 41 STR, 294.

In the result, revision nos. 1504, 1505, 1506 and 1507 of 2000 fail and are, accordingly, dismissed.

Dt:07.02.2007.

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.