Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

COMMISSIONER,TRADE TAX,U.P.LUCKNOW versus ATMA RAM ROSHAN LAL

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Commissioner,Trade Tax,U.P.Lucknow v. Atma Ram Roshan Lal - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 959 of 2000 [2007] RD-AH 5443 (28 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.959 OF 2000

The Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P. Lucknow.       ....Applicant

Versus

S/S Atma Ram Roshan Lal Naneta, Saharanpur.   .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 28.07.1999 relating to the assessment year 1993-94 under U.P. Trade Tax Act.

Dealer/opposite party (hereinafter referred to as "Dealer") purchased rice bran as a commission agent for and on behalf of the principal against Form 3-B. On the basis of the aforesaid Form 3-B dealer claimed  the benefit of concessional rate of tax on the purchases of rice bran. The benefit of concessional rate of tax had been disallowed by the assessing authority and by the first appellate authority also on the ground that rice bran was not a declared commodity. Tribunal however, allowed the benefit of concessional rate of tax relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Shri Mahalaxmi Industries, reported in 1980 UPTC, 679.

Heard learned Standing Counsel. Despite the service of notice, no one appears on behalf of the opposite party.

Learned Standing Counsel submitted that the issue involved in the present revision is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Trade Tax Vs. S/S Maltidevi, Deoria, reported in 2000 UPTC, 294. This Court held that since the rice bran was not a declared commodity, therefore, the provisions of section 4-B (1-a) of the Act does not apply. Decision of learned Single Judge in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Shri Mahalaxmi Industries (Supra) has been considered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of M/S Agarwala Brothers Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax, reported in 1990 UPTC, 76. The Division Bench of this Court held that the decision in the case of CST Vs. Shri  Mahalaxmi Industries (Supra) did not laid down the correct law. Division Bench of this Court held that under section 4-B (1) the benefit is liable to only to those dealer, who are holding recognition certificate. Those dealer, who are not holding recognition certificate is not entitled for the benefit under section 4-B (1)) of the Act. After the decision in the case of M/S Agarwala Brothers Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax (Supra) sub-section (a-1) has been added in section 4-B of the Act w.e.f. 01.05.1977 providing the benefit even to those dealers, who are not holding recognition certificate in respect of the transactions of the declared goods only. Section 4-B (a-1) of the Act read as follows:

Section 4-B. Specific relief to certain manufacturers.

(a-1) Where any declared goods liable to tax under sub-section (1) of section 3-D are sold or supplied by a dealer, who is the first purchaser thereof, to another dealer, holding a valid recognition certificate issued under sub-section (2) in respect thereof, the dealer who made the first purchase shall in respect of such purchase and subject to such conditions and restrictions as may be specified by notification in that behalf, be exempt from tax or be liable to tax at such concessional rate as may be notified by the State Government:

Provided that any notification under this clause or clause (a) in respect of paddy may be made effective from a date not earlier than the first day of May, 1977:

Provided further that the rules to carry out the objects of this clause or clause (a) may also be made effective from the date not earlier than the first day of May, 1977."

Since the rice bran is not declared commodity, therefore, the benefit of concessional rate of tax is not admissible to the dealer on their purchases admittedly not holding the recognition certificate under section 4-B (2) of the Act. In this view of the matter order of the Tribunal is erroneous and is liable to be set aside.

In the result, revision is allowed. Order of the Tribunal is set aside granting the benefit of the concessional rate of tax on the purchases of rice bran of Rs.12,88,647.95p.. Tribunal is directed to pass appropriate orders under section 11 (8) of the Act.

Dt.28.03.2007

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.