Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

COMMISSIONER, TRADE TAX, U.P. LUCKNOW versus MAILEBEL PIPE FITTING IND. MEERUT

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P. Lucknow v. Mailebel Pipe Fitting Ind. Meerut - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 1556 of 2000 [2007] RD-AH 2425 (14 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.1556 OF 2000

AND

TRADE TAX REVISION NO.1557 OF 2000

The Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P., Lucknow.       ....Applicant

Versus

S/S Mailebel Pipe Fitting Ind., Meerut.   .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 17.08.2000 relating to the assessment year 1992-93 both under the U.P. Trade Tax Act as well as Central Sales Tax Act.

Dealer/opposite party (hereinafter referred to as "Dealer") was engaged in the business of manufacture and sales of pipe fittings. Books of account have been rejected on the basis of the certain documents seized from the premises of M/s Vinayak Transport Corporation, 30 Transport Nagar, Meerut and certain documents seized at the time of survey dated 07.01.1993 made at the premises of the dealer. So far as the documents seized from the premises of M/s Vinayak Transport Corporation, Meerut is concerned, dealer denied that they relates to their business. The opportunity of the cross- examination to M/s Vinayak Transport Corporation, Meerut was sought. It appears that without giving the opportunity of the cross-examination adverse inference was drawn against the dealer. Matter went to the Tribunal. Tribunal remanded back the matter to the assessing authority with the direction to provide the opportunity of the cross-examination to the dealer. It appears that summons were issued to M/s Vinayak Transport Corporation, Meerut but they had not responded. Assessing authority proceeded to make the assessment without giving the opportunity of cross-examination to the dealer. Assessing authority on the basis of the documents seized from the premises of M/s Vinayak Transport Corporation, Meerut and the documents seized from the premises of the dealer at the time of survey dated 07.01.1993 estimated the suppressed sale both under the U.P. Trade Tax Act as well as under Central Sales Tax Act. Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Trade Tax Meerut dismissed both the appeals. Being aggrieved by the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) dealer filed appeals before the Tribunal. Tribunal by the impugned order allowed both the appeals in part. Tribunal held that the revenue has failed to prove its case that the documents, which were seized from the premises of M/s Vinayak Transport Corporation, Meerut relates to the dealer, inasmuch as the opportunity of the cross-examination has not been provided to the dealer. Tribunal, however, estimated the suppressed sale on the basis of the documents seized from the premises of the dealer at the time of survey dated 07.01.1993.

Heard Learned Standing Counsel.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the order of the Tribunal and the authorities below.

Learned Standing Counsel submitted that the Tribunal has erred in holding that no adverse inference can be drawn from the documents seized from the premises of the M/s Vinayak Transport Corporation, Meerut.

I do not find any substance in the argument of Learned Standing Counsel.  In case, if the revenue wanted to rely upon the documents seized from the premises of M/s Vinayak Transport Corporation, Meerut against the dealer it was incumbent upon the assessing authority to prove the genuineness and authenticity of the documents and to prove that they relates to the dealer business. In the process of proving its case revenue should have afforded the opportunity of cross-examination of M/s Vinayak Transport Corporation, Meerut to the dealer. Despite the specific directions being given by the Tribunal, assessing authority failed to provide the opportunity of the cross-examination. In this view of the matter Tribunal has rightly held that the documents seized from the premises of M/s Vinayak Transport Corporation, Meerut can not be relied upon against the dealer. Finding of the Tribunal in this regard is finding of fact. No question of law is involved in the present revision.

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

Dt.14.02.2007

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.