Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

THE COMMISSIONER TRADE TAX U.P. LUCKNOW versus S/S MATHARU INDUSTRIES

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 Matharu Industries - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 170 of 2001 [2007] RD-AH 3350 (27 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. 170 of  2001.

AND

Trade Tax Revision no. 177 of  2001.

AND

Trade Tax Revision no. 178 of  2001.

AND

Trade Tax Revision no. 180 of  2001.

AND

Trade Tax Revision no. 181 of  2001.

AND

Trade Tax Revision no. 185 of  2001.

AND

Trade Tax Revision no. (18) of  2001.

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

Vs

 S/S Matharu Industries, Agra. ... Opp. Party.

Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.

These seven revisions under Section 11 of U.P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") are directed against the order of Tribunal dated 21.10.2000 relating to the assessment years 1985-86, 1986-87, 1988-89, 1989-90, 1991-92, 1992-93 and 1996-97 respectively, by which, the Tribunal has deleted the penalty levied under Section 10-A of the Central Sales Tax Act.  

The penalty under Section 10-A of the Act was levied for the aforesaid assessment years on the ground that the dealer was registered under the Central Sales Tax Act for Sariya, Machine Forging, Steel-sheet and Belt and purchased Oil Engine Parts, Spare Parts and Casting Items from outside the State of U. P.  against Form-C and Machines and Steel Sheet purchased against Form-C were used in job work.  The Assessing Authority was of the view that the dealer had made false representation that it was registered for Oil Engine Parts, Spare Parts and Casting Items.  The case of the dealer was that Oil Engine Parts, Spare Parts and Casting were the forging items and since it was registered for forging, there was no violation of Section 10-(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act and the goods manufactured from machine and Steel-sheet on job work basis were sold by the party for whom the job work was done.  By the impugned order, the Tribunal has accepted the plea of the dealer and deleted the penalty.

Heard learned Standing Counsel.

I do not find any error in the order of the Tribunal.  The finding of the Tribunal is the finding of fact which does not require any interference.

In the result, all the aforesaid seven  revisions fail and are, accordingly, dismissed.

Dt:27.02.2007.

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.