Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

NEW HARYANA TRANSPORT COMPANY, CALCUTTA versus THE COMMISSIONER OF TRADE TAX, U.P. LUCKNOW

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


New Haryana Transport Company, Calcutta v. The Commissioner Of Trade Tax, U.P. Lucknow - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 349 of 2001 [2007] RD-AH 4168 (12 March 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.  349 of  2001.

New Haryana Transport Company, Calcutta.  ... Revisionist. Vs

Commissioner of  Trade Tax, U. P. Lucknow. ... 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 the Tribunal dated 24.01.2001 relating to the assessment year 1984-85.

Applicant is a registered transporter.  The Assessing authority received the information that 7 Form -34 obtained at the entry Check Post were not surrendered at the exit Check Post.  On the basis of the said information, a proceeding under Section 7 of the Act was initiated.  Applicant furnished Certificate issued from exit Check Post in respect of 3 Form-34 which were given on the basis of their record that the said Form 34 were surrendered at the exit Check Post.   However, the Assessing Authority had not accepted the claim  in respect of other 4 Form-34 and presumed the sales of goods mentioned in Form 34  and by way of best judgment assessment, estimated the turnover at Rs.5,00,000/-.  Being aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Authority, applicant filed appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Trade Tax.  The Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Trade Tax on the basis of Certificate issued by the exit Check Post, accepted the claim in respect of another 2 Form-34.  It appears that the applicant had filed a Certificate obtained from Hindustan Copper Limited who was the consignee of all the transactions giving details of the delivery Challans and G. Rs. certifying that the goods relating to the G. Rs. were received by them.  It appears that the applicant also filed a Certificate of one Form 34 relating to the Truck no. MBJ no. 7199.  The First Appellate Authority accepted the claim of the applicant in respect of  another 2 Form-34, but has rejected the claim of other 2 Form-34 relating to the Truck no.  MBJ-7199 and RSB-4480 on the ground that in the Certificate issued by the exit Check Post, Truck number was mentioned as MBJ- 7094 instead of MBJ-7199.  Claim of other Form was rejected on the ground that from the Certificate, it is not established that the same goods were received by Hindustan Copper Limited, in respect of which, Forms 34 were obtained.  The First Appellate Authority estimated the turnover at Rs.3 Lacs.  Being aggrieved by the order of the First Appellate Authority, applicant filed Second appeal before the Tribunal.  The Tribunal by the impugned order, dismissed the appeal.  The Tribunal held that from the Certificate filed by the dealer, it is not established that the goods received were the same, for which, Forms-34 were issued.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that the Certificate given by the Hindustan Copper Limited establishes that the goods were received by them.  He further submitted that the total value of the goods relating to the alleged 2 Form-34 was at Rs.1,27,360/-, therefore, estimate of turnover at Rs.3 Lacs is arbitrary.  Learned Standing Counsel relied upon the order of the Tribunal.

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

In the Certificate issued by Hindustan Copper Limited, there is no mention of Form-34 and Truck number.  Only delivery Challan number and G. R. number were mentioned.  Applicant had not filed Form 34 to establish that the same G. R. numbers were mentioned in the tax disputed Form 34.  There is nothing on record to prove that the alleged 2 Forms-34 were for G. R. number 3690/9.7.84 and 3932/28.6.84 which are mentioned in the Certificate issued by Hindustan Copper Limited.  In this view of the matter, applicant failed to prove that the goods which were received by Hindustan Copper Limited in respect of which, Certificate was issued,  relates to the disputed Form 34.  However, looking to the value of the goods at Rs.1,27,360/-, the estimate of turnover at Rs.3 Lacs appears to be excessive.  Having regard to the transportation charges and expenses etc. turnover is estimated at Rs.2 Lacs.

In the result, revision is allowed in part.  The turnover is estimated at Rs.2 Lacs in place of Rs.3 Lacs, the Tribunal is directed to pass appropriate order under Section 11 (8) of the Act.

Dt:12.03.2007.

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.