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 v. S/S Arihant Traders, - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 591 of 1999 [2007] RD-AH 2925 (21 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).




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


S/S Arihant Traders, Station Road, Lalitpur.   .Opp.party


Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.

Present revision under Section 11 of U.P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as "Act") is directed against the order of Tribunal dated 06.02.1999 relating to the assessment year 1996-97, by which Tribunal has confirmed the order of first appellate authority deleting the penalty under section 13-A (4) of the Act.

Brief facts of the case are that on the inspection of the vehicle loaded with 211 bags supari by the Trade Tax Officer, (SIB), Jhansi on 14.03.1997 bill no.26, dated 12.03.1997, builty no.142, dated 12.03.1997 of M/s Shriram Transport Corporation, Lalitpur and letter dated 12.03.1997 was available. Detention notice no.275 dated 13.03.1997 was issued. Dealer was asked to appear alongwith the books of account. It appears that adjournments were sought and books of account were not produced, as a result of which goods were seized and the security was demanded. Goods were subsequently released. In pursuance of the seizure order, penalty notice dated 13-A (3) of the Act was issued. Dealer appeared alongwith the books of account and had shown the entry of bill no.26, dated 12.03.1997 in its books of account. Assessing authority, however, levied the penalty on the ground that prior to bill no.26, dated 12.03.1997, dealer had issued bill nos.32, 83, 34 and 164, dated 08.02.1997. Assessing authority was of the view that the dealer had issued the bills with irregular serial numbers. Being aggrieved by the penalty order, dealer filed appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Jhansi. Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Jhansi allowed the appeal and set aside the penalty order on the ground that the entry of the bill was duly found entered in the books of account. Order of the first appellate authority has been upheld by the Tribunal.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Learned Standing Counsel submitted that the dealer could not produce the books of account before the Trade Tax Officer, (SIB) and its bills were found issued with irregular serial numbers and, therefore, penalty was rightly been levied.

I do not find any substance in the argument of learned Standing Counsel.

Section 13-A (4) of the Act read as follows:

"13-A. Power to seize.

(4) If such authority, after taking into consideration the explanation, if any, of the dealer or, as the case may be, the person incharge and giving him an opportunity of being heard, is satisfied that the said gods were omitted from being shown in the account registers and other documents referred to in sub-section (1) it shall be pass an order imposing a penalty not exceeding forty percent of the value of such goods as he deemed fit."

Penalty under section 13-A (4) of the Act can be levied only in a case if goods are omitted to have been shown in the books of account, document or register. In the present case, it is true that the dealer had not produced the books of account before the Trade Tax Officer, (SIB) for verification and that raises the doubt but on this basis alone penalty under section 13-A (4) of the Act can not be levied. It was open to the Trade Tax Officer, (SIB) that after the inspection of the vehicle, he should have immediately made the survey of the dealer premises and should have checked the books of account or should have summoned the books of account.

So far as irregular serial number of the bill is concerned, it appears that no query has been made by the assessing authority in this regard.  In view of the fact that the entry of bill no.26, dated 12.03.1997 was duly found entered in the books of account, levy of penalty was not justified and has rightly been deleted by both the appellate authorities.

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.