Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

DY. DIRECTOR (CONSTRUCTION) MANDI PARISHAD, BAREILLY versus THE COMMISSIONER TRADE TAX, U.P. LKO.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Dy. Director (Construction) Mandi Parishad, Bareilly v. The Commissioner Trade Tax, U.P. Lko. - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 645 of 2001 [2007] RD-AH 5333 (26 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.645 OF 2001

Deputy Director (Construction) Mandi

Parishad, Bareilly. ....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 01.05.2001 relating to the assessment year 1987-88.

Applicant is a semi-Government organisation. It appears that the applicant had got certain civil constructions executed through civil contractors and as per the contract provided cement and while making the payment deducted the tax @ 4% under section 8-D (1) of the Act. Assessing authority vide order dated 24.03.1992 raised the demand of Rs.1,25,838/- on account of levy of tax on the value of the goods supplied to the contractors including a sum of Rs.2,468/-, which were deposited in short under section 8-D (1) of the Act.  Applicant moved an application under section 22 of the Act and claimed the adjustment of Rs.87,087/- deposited by it, in respect of which certificates were also filed. Assessing authority vide order dated 21.07.1992 rectified its earlier order and allowed the benefit of the amount of Rs.87,087/-. Assessing authority had modified its demand to the extent levying the tax at Rs.36,000/- and Rs.2,468/- short deposit towards the tax deduction the total demand reduced to Rs.38,768/-. The interest on the amount of Rs.2,468/- was also demanded w.e.f. 01.05.1987. Applicant filed two appeals before the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial), Banda; one against the original assessment order and another against the order passed under section 22 of the Act. Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) Trade Tax, Bareilly  vide order dated 26.11.1992 dismissed the appeal against the original assessment order and partly allowed the appeal against the order under section 22 of the Act and deleted the demand of interest under section 8 (1) of the Act. It appears that before the first appellate authority applicant has not pressed the levy of tax on the value of the goods supplied to the contractors.  Being aggrieved by the order of the first appellate authority in appeal no.611 of 1992, which was filed against the order under section 22 of the Act, applicant filed appeal before the Tribunal. Tribunal by the impugned order dismissed the appeal.

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

I do not find any error in the order of the Tribunal.

In the result, revision fails and is accordingly, dismissed.

Dt.26.03.2007

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.