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 U.P. Lucknow v. S/S Rajat Products Mohkampur Meerut - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 166 of 2001 [2007] RD-AH 3354 (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).


Court no. 22

Trade Tax Revision no.  166 of  2001.

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

M/S Rajat Products, Meerut. ... Opp. Party.

Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J

Present revision arises from the order of the Tribunal dated 12.9.2000, by which, the Tribunal has confirmed the order of the First Appellate Authority deleting the penalty under Section 13-A (4) of the Act.

On 30.5.1995, the Trade Tax Officer, Railway Check Post intercepted the Vehicle no. USP- 850, in which, 35 Kg. Welding Rod was found loaded.   The driver of the Vehicle produced the Challan no. 4071 dated 29.5.1995.  It appears that on the same date, immediately after checking, a survey was made at the business premises of the dealer and Bill-book, Challan and other books of account were examined.  Bills in respect of the goods were found issued, however, goods were seized on the ground of alleged difference in writing in Challan found alongwith the goods and Challan available in Challan-book.  The seized goods were subsequently released on furnishing of security at Rs.1320/-.  In pursuance of the seizure order, penalty under Section 13-A (4) of the Act was initiated and on receipt of the reply, a sum of Rs.1320/- was levied towards the penalty.  Being aggrieved by the penalty order, dealer filed appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeal), Trade Tax.  The Deputy Commissioner (Appeal), Trade Tax allowed the appeal on the ground that after inspection of the Vehicle, the Trade Tax Officer had immediately made a survey on 30.5.1995 at the premises of the dealer and the bills relating to the goods were found issued and accordingly, the penalty was deleted and the Tribunal has confirmed the order of the First Appellate Authority.

Heard learned Standing Counsel.

I do not find any error in the order of the Tribunal.  On the facts and circumstances , there is no case that the goods were omitted to have been shown in the books of account.

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.