Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

M/S SAKSHI HANDICARFTS THRU' PROP. MALKHAN SINGH versus COMMISSIONER TRADE TAX, U.P. LUKCNOW

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


M/S Sakshi Handicarfts Thru' Prop. Malkhan Singh v. Commissioner Trade Tax, U.P. Lukcnow - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 103 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 4667 (16 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.103 OF 2007

M/s Sakshi Handicrafts, Moradabad.     ....Applicant

Versus

Commissioner, 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 Tribunal dated 15.02.2007 arising from the seizure proceedings.

Applicant is a registered dealer carrying on the business of brass plates. Trade Tax Officer, Mobile Squad on 31.01.2007 checked the vehicle no.UP-14-G/1591. On the checking, apart from the other goods, 750 plates  were found in respect of which driver of the vehicle produced bill no.5241, dated 14.01.2007 issued in favour of M/s Tilakdhar Metal Store, G.N.B.Road, Tinsukhia, Assam for Rs.68,750/- on which a sum of Rs.2,750/- was charged towards freight. GR No.00415, dated 14.01.2007 was also produced, which was prepared for Tinsukhia. In the bill consignee was shown as seller. Trade Tax Officer, Mobile Squad detained the goods and issued show cause notice on the ground that in the bill proper address of the purchaser was not mentioned, and the tax was charged @ 4% while there was no mention about Form-C and in the builty consignee was shown "self", while it was prepared for Tinsukhia. On this ground Trade Tax Officer, Mobile Squad was of the view that the entry of the bill was doubtful in the books of account. Applicant appeared and filed the reply to the show cause notice. In the reply, it was stated that that the bill was issued from the regular bill book. It was also stated that the bill is being produced for perusal. Assessing authority passed the seizure order on 31.01.2007. Apart from the other objections, Trade Tax Officer, Mobile Squad observed that no evidence has been produced about the entry of the transactions in the books of account. Applicant filed application under the proviso of section 13-A (6) of the Act, which was rejected by the Deputy Commissioner (Enforcement) vide order dated 05.02.2007. Being aggrieved by the order applicant filed appeal before the Tribunal. Tribunal by the impugned order dismissed the appeal. In this matter after seizing the goods on the value of Rs.71,500/- security at Rs.21,450/- has been demanded being 30% of the tax is cash.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the reason for the seizure of the goods is absolutely irrelevant. He submitted that merely because in the bill incomplete address was mentioned, it can not be inferred that the goods were not found entered in the books of account. He submitted that the sales were against Form C and, therefore, 4% tax was charged. In respect of the transactions Form C was also submitted and, therefore, seizure of the goods was patently erroneous.

Learned Standing Counsel submitted that in the show cause notice it was categorically stated that the entry of the bill was found doubtful. He submitted that while seizing the goods, seizing authority had categorically recorded the finding that no evidence was adduced to prove that the transactions was found entered in the books of account and this finding had not been challenged by the applicant before any of the authority.  He submitted that in the application under proviso of section 13-A (6) of the Act aforesaid finding has not been challenged. Even grounds of appeal before the Tribunal does not suggest that such findings has been challenged.

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

It is true that merely because in the bill complete address of the buyer was not mentioned and it is also not mentioned that the sales are against Form C may not be a valid ground for the seizure of the goods unless it is found that the entry of the bill are not recorded in the books of account. On the basis of the doubt, goods can be detained but for the seizure of the goods there should be material that the entry of the goods have not been made in the books of account. In the present case, in the seizure order, the seizing authority had recorded the finding that no evidence has been adduced to prove that the transactions were entered in the books of account. The application under proviso of section 13-A (6) of the Act and the ground of appeal before the Tribunal show that this finding of the seizing authority has not been challenged. In the circumstances, prima facie it can not be said that the seizure of the goods was unjustified.

However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and applicant being a registered dealer and the finding recorded by the assessing authority is to be considered in the penalty proceedings, the seized goods are directed to be released on the deposit of 10% of the value of the goods which comes to Rs.7,150/- and on furnishing of security of the balance amount in the form other than cash or bank guarantee. On the security being furnished seized goods may be released forthwith. Seizing authority is also directed to refer the matter to the assessing authority after the release of the goods and the assessing authority is directed to conclude the proceedings in pursuance of the seizure order expeditiously.

With the aforesaid observation, revision stand disposed of.

Dt.16.03.2007

R./


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.