Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

M/S GANGESHWAR LTD., DEOBAND, SAHARANPUR versus THE COMMISSIONER OF TRADE TAX, U.P. LKO.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


M/S Gangeshwar Ltd., Deoband, Saharanpur v. The Commissioner Of Trade Tax, U.P. Lko. - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 114 of 2000 [2007] RD-AH 4777 (19 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.114 of 2000.

AND

TRADE TAX REVISION NO.115 of 2000.

M/S Gangeshwar Limited, Deoband, Saharanpur.    Applicant

      Versus

The Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P. Lucknow.                                  Opp.Party.

Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.

Present two revisions under Section 11 of U.P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as "Act") are directed against the order of Tribunal dated08.12.1999 relating to the assessment year, 1983-84 and 1984-85 by which the Tribunal has confirmed the penalty levied under section 10-A of the Central Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as "Central Act") for the alleged default under section 10 (b) of the Central Act.

Assessing authority levied the penalty under section 10-A of the Central Act on the ground that during the years under consideration, the applicant issued Form C for the purchases of Lubricants, Fire Bricks, MS Plates after repair and for repair and laboratory instruments. For the assessment year, 1984-85, penalty under section 10-A of the Act has also been levied for the issue of Form C for the purchase of Refractor for Rs. 22,727/-. Claim of the applicant was that the aforesaid items were covered under the Mill Stores and General Stores, which have not been accepted. First appeals filed by the applicant was allowed and the penalty orders have been set aside. Commissioner of Trade Tax filed two appeals before the Tribunal. Tribunal by the impugned order allowed both the appeals and set aside the order passed by the first appellate authority. Tribunal held that the aforesaid items cannot be said to be the goods of general merchandise and they were not covered under the registration certificate and, accordingly, penalty orders under section 10-A of the Central Act have been restored.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that on an application moved by the applicant, assessing authority vide order dated 31st March, 1993 added Fire bricks, Lubricants, laboratory apparatus and Refractor in the registration certificate with retrospective effect and, therefore, it is deemed that the applicant was registered for the aforesaid items. Therefore, the penalty under section 10-A of the Central Act for the alleged default of Section 10 (b) of the Central Act cannot be levied in respect of aforesaid three items. The order dated 31st March, 1993 is Annexure-2 to the revision petition.

I find substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the applicant.

Perusal of the order dated 31st March, 1993 passed under section 7 (4) (a) of the Central Act, prima facie reveals that Fire Bricks, Lubricants, Laboratory Apparatus and Refractor have been added in the registration certificate with retrospective effect. If it is so, and the said order has not been set aside or revised by any of the Competent Authority, the aforesaid items, namely, Fire Bricks, Lubricants, Laboratory Apparatus and Refractor are deemed to be in the registration certificate right from the beginning and it is deemed that the applicant was registered under the Central Act for the aforesaid items for the years under consideration.

Perusal of the impugned order of the Tribunal reveals that this aspect of the matter has not been examined properly. In these circumstances, the order of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Tribunal to decide the appeal afresh.

In the result, both the revisions are allowed. The order of the Tribunal is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal to decide the appeal afresh in the light of the observations made above.

Dated.19.03.2007.

VS.


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.