Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


The Commissioner, Trade Tax, Lko. v. S/S Hans Enterprises, S.K, Road, Meerut - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 661 of 2000 [2007] RD-AH 2389 (13 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).


Court no. 22

Trade Tax Revision no.  661 of  2000.

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

S/S Hans Enterprises, Meerut. ... Opp. Party.

Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J

Present revision under Section 11 of U. P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ''Act') is directed against the order of the Tribunal dated 30.11.1999 relating to the assessment year 1993-94, by which, the Tribunal has deleted the demand of interest under Section 8 (1) of the Act.

Heard learned Standing Counsel.

Despite the service being made, no one appears on behalf of the Opposite Party/Dealer.

The brief facts of the case are that the Opposite Party/Dealer (hereinafter referred to as the "Dealer") was carrying on the business of Sport Shoes.  Registration was granted for Sport Shoes.  Dealer had admitted and deposited the tax @ 5% alongwith the return treating the Sport Shoes as the Sport goods.  During the course of assessment proceedings, dealer was informed that the Sport Shoes were liable to tax under the entry 'All Kinds of Footwear" under the Notification no. ST-II-3096/11-9/(94)/91-U.P.-Act-15/48-Order-92 dated 31.7.1992 @ 7.5% inclusive surcharge.  Thus, the dealer immediately deposited the differential amount of tax on 10.3.1996 before the assessment order.  Tax was levied @ 7.5%.

So far as interest is concerned, dealer contended that under the bonafide belief that the Sport Shoes were liable to tax as Sport goods @ 5%, tax admitted and deposited @ 5% and thus, the tax assessed @ 7.5% cannot be said to be tax admitted payable and the interest under Section 8 (1) of the Act could not be demanded.  Plea of the dealer was not accepted by the Assessing Authority as well by  the First Appellate Authority.  The Tribunal, however, accepted the plea of the dealer and held that at no stage, dealer had admitted liability of tax @ 7.5% and tax @ 5% was deposited under the bonafide belief as Sport goods.  I do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal, inasmuch as, on the facts and circumstances of the case finding of the Tribunal is the finding of fact.

In the result, revision fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.




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


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 |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.