Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

THE COMMISSIONER, TRADE TAX, U.P.LUCKNOW versus S/S FADCO PAINTS & CONTRACTORS, BADRALA, BADAUN

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


The Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P.Lucknow v. S/S Fadco Paints & Contractors, Badrala, Badaun - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 935 of 2000 [2007] RD-AH 251 (4 January 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

Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J

Heard learned Standing Counsel.

By the impugned order, Tribunal has confirmed the order of the first appellate authority deleting the tax levied under section 3-F of the Act.

Dealer is a contractor and had executed the contract for structural painting and building painting. Assessing authority levied the tax on the value of the goods involved in the execution of such contract. First appellate authority deleted the tax on the ground that the painting was not included within 15 items of the works contract specified in the notification dated 27.4.1987 and, thus, such works contract relating to the painting was not liable to tax under section 3-F of the Act. The order of the first appellate authority has been confirmed by the Tribunal. Tribunal while confirming the order of the first appellate authority relied upon the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Anurag Industries, Ghaziabad Versus State of U.P. and others, reported in 1996 UPTC 6. Learned Standing counsel is not able to show any decision to the contrary to the Division Bench decision of this Court. In the Notification dated 27.4.1987 only 15 works contract are specified which have been subjected to tax under section 3-F of the Act. Painting is not included as specified works contract; therefore, it is not liable to tax under section 3-F of the Act. Tribunal has rightly held so.

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

Dated.04.01.2007.

VS.935/2000.


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.