Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

M/S MEERA GLASS INDUSTRIES, AGRA GATE versus COMMISSIONER OF TRADE TAX LUCKNOW

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


M/S Meera Glass Industries, Agra Gate v. Commissioner Of Trade Tax Lucknow - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 836 of 2000 [2007] RD-AH 564 (10 January 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.  836  of 2000.

M/S Meera Glass Industries, Firozabad. ... Revisionist.

Vs

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

AND

Trade Tax Revision no.  1398  of 2000.

Commissioner of Trade Tax, U. P. Lucknow. ... Revisionist.

Versus

S/S Meers Glass Industries, Firozabad. ...  Opp. Party.

Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J

Present revisions under Section 11 of U. P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as ''Act') are directed against the order of the Tribunal dated 20.06.2000 relating to the assessment year 1993-94.

Against the same impugned order of the Tribunal, Revision no. 836 of 2000 has been filed by the dealer/applicant and the revision no. 1398 of 2000 has been filed by the Commissioner of Trade Tax.

Dealer is involved in the business of manufacturing of Glassware and Lab- ware.  Lab-ware is exempted from tax.  Dealer was holding a Recognition Certificate under Section 4-B of the Act and was entitled to purchase raw-materials at a concessional rate of tax.  Raw-materials purchased at a concessional rate of tax was required to be used in the manufacturing of taxable goods and not in the manufacturing of non taxable goods.  The Assessing Authority, however, found that the goods purchased against Form 3-B at a concessional rate of tax were used in the manufacturing of Glassware as well as the Lab-ware and therefore, initiated a proceeding under Section 4-B(5) of the Act.  Dealer submitted that the broken Glassware were purchased against Form 3-B as well as from outside the State of U. P. and in the manufacturing of Lab-ware, only broken Glass purchased from outside the State of U. P., were used.  The Assessing Authority had accepted the claim of the dealer in this regard.  However, the Assessing Authority, had not accepted the claim of the dealer in respect of Soda-ash, Chemical and packing Boxes.  It has been held that these items were used in the manufacturing of Lab-ware.  With regard to the Soda-ash and Chemical, the dealer submitted that they were not used in the manufacture of Lab-ware and with regard to the packing materials, it was submitted that packing Boxes purchased against Form 3-B were not used in the packing of Lab-ware and Lab-ware were packed by Crate, Grass and Pual.  Having regard to the proportionate use of Chemical, Soda-ash and packing material, a penalty under Section 4-B (5) of the Act was levied.  Order of the Assessing Authority has been confirmed in appeal.  Dealer filed Second Appeal before the Tribunal.  The Tribunal by the impugned order, allowed the appeal in part.  The Tribunal has accepted the claim of the dealer that in the manufacturing of Lab-ware, Soda-ash and Chemical were not used.  It has been held that in the manufacturing of Lab-ware, use of Soda-ash and Chemical is not necessary, for which, reliance has been placed on the Certificate dated 20.2.1996 issued by the Expert.  The Tribunal however, has not accepted the claim of the dealer that the packing Boxes which were purchased against Form 3-B have not been used in the packing of Lab-ware on the ground that the dealer was not able to show any purchases of Crate, Grass and Pual which were claimed to have been used in the packing of Lab-ware.  The Tribunal accordingly deleted the penalty levied for use of Soda-ash and Chemical but has upheld the penalty for use of packing Boxes.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

I do not find any error in the order of the Tribunal.  Findings of the Tribunal are the finding of fact, which does not require any interference.

In the result, both the revisions fail and are, accordingly, dismissed.

Dt:10.01.2007.

MZ/-


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.