Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

AMIT GRAMUDYOG SEVA SANSTHAN versus COMMISSIONER TRADE TAX

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Amit Gramudyog Seva Sansthan v. Commissioner Trade Tax - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 1669 of 2006 [2007] RD-AH 5558 (29 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.1669 OF 2006

Amit Gramudyog Seva Sansthan

Chaubey Chhapra, Ballia.       ....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 21.09.2006 relating to the assessment year 2002-03.

Applicant is a Cooperative Society and claimed as an Institution certified by Khadi Gramodyog Board, U. P. Lucknow.  Applicant claimed that it was involved in the manufacturing of Stone Lime.  Applicant had purchased coal for Rs.61,95,017.51p.  Claim of the applicant that it was involved in the manufacturing of lime had been rejected on the basis of various surveys made by the Assessing Authority when, no activity of manufacturing was found.  On this basis, it has been inferred that the applicant had sold the coal as such and accordingly, turnover of coal had been estimated. The turnover of coal has been confirmed by the first appellate authority as well as by the Tribunal.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that the Tribunal has erred in not accepting the claim of the applicant about the manufacturing of Lime.  He submitted that even assuming without admitting that the view of the Tribunal that the applicant was not involved in the activity of manufacturing of Lime, is correct but the estimate of turnover of coal, is arbitrary and based on no material.  Learned Standing Counsel supported the order of the Tribunal.

I have perused the order of Tribunal and the authorities below.  I do not find any illegality in the order of the Tribunal in taking the view that the applicant was not involved in the manufacturing of Lime.  Various surveys were made at the premises of the applicant and no manufacturing activity was found, therefore, the Tribunal has rightly concluded that the applicant was not involved in the manufacturing of Lime and sold the coal as under.

However, I find substance in the argument of learned Counsel for the applicant that the Tribunal has not considered this submission about the estimate of turnover of coal.  Perusal of order of the Tribunal reveals that the question of estimate of turnover of coal, has not been considered and adjudicated, therefore, the order of the Tribunal is vitiated and is liable to be set aside.  The Tribunal is directed to adjudicate the question of estimate of turnover of coal.

In the result, revision is allowed in part.  Order of the Tribunal is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal to decide the appeals afresh and adjudicate the issue relating to estimate of turnover of Coal.

Dt.29.03.2007

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.