Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

M/S RAM BHAROSEY LAL HARI SHANKER versus COMMISSIONER TRADE TAX U.P.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


M/S Ram Bharosey Lal Hari Shanker v. Commissioner Trade Tax U.P. - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 1060 of 2000 [2007] RD-AH 567 (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.1060 OF 2000

AND

TRADE TAX REVISION NO.1061 OF 2000

AND

TRADE TAX REVISION NO.1287 OF 2000

M/s Ram Bharosey Lal Hari Shanker, Moradabad.       ....Applicant

Versus

The Commissioner of Trade Tax, U.P. at Lucknow.   .Opp.party

***************

Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.

These three revisions under Section 11 of U.P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as "Act") are directed against the order of Tribunal dated 29.04.2000 relating to the assessment years 1991-92, 92-93 and 93-94.

Applicant was carrying on the business of food grains and oil seed. Applicant claimed to have acted as purchasing commission agent on behalf of Ex-U.P. Principal and claimed to have made the purchases on their behalf. In the assessment year 1991-92, 92-93 and 93-94 applicant claimed to have made the purchases on behalf of Ex-U.P. Principal at Rs.37,12,586/-, Rs.42,88.517/- and Rs.6,70,125/- respectively. It was claimed that after making the purchases, goods were despatched at the destination of Ex-U.P. Principal outside the State of U.P. Thus, the purchases were made in the course of inter-State purchases and not liable to tax under section 3-D of the Act. Assessing authority had not accepted the plea of the applicant on the ground that the applicant had not produced any purchase order on the basis of which goods were purchased and, therefore, such purchases have been held made on his own account and not on behalf of Ex-U.P. Principal. Assessing authority had also made observation that the applicant had realised tax from the Ex-U.P. Principal. Being aggrieved by the order, applicant filed appeals before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Moradabad. It appears that during the course of hearing of appeal, Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Moradabad sought report from the assessing authority in respect of the transactions as well as on the point whether the applicant had realised any tax from the Ex-U.P. Principal.  In the report, assessing authority held that the purchases were not made for and on behalf of Ex-U.P. Principal. Assessing authority, however, observed that the examination of the record shows that the applicant had not realised any tax from outside party. Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Moradabad vide order dated 20.09.1997 allowed all the appeals and held that the purchases were in the course of inter-State purchases and, therefore, not liable to tax. Being aggrieved by the order of Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Moradabad, Commissioner of Trade Tax filed appeals before the Tribunal. Tribunal by the impugned order  set aside the order of the first appellate authority and remanded back the matter to the assessing authority for fresh examination of the transactions, which were claimed to have been made as purchasing commission agent on behalf of Ex-U.P. Principal. Tribunal held that the transactions have not been properly examined by the first appellate authority and by the assessing authority.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

I have perused the order of Tribunal and the authorities below.

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the remand of the case is unjustified. Learned Standing Counsel relied upon the order of the Tribunal.

I do not find any error in the order of Tribunal remanding back the matter to the assessing authority for fresh examination of the transactions, which are claimed to have been made as purchasing commission agent for and on behalf of Ex-U.P. Principal. For being transactions in the course of inter-State purchases it has to be examined whether purchases have been made on the basis of the instructions/directions or orders of Ex-U.P. Principal and after purchasing the goods, same were despatched at the destination of the Ex-U.P. Principal outside the State of U.P. and both purchases as well as sale are part of the same transactions. This principle has been laid down by the Apex Court in the case of CST and others Vs. M/s Bakhtawar Lal Kailash Chand Arhti and others, reported in 1992 UPTC, 971. Thus, the purchases  on the basis of the instructions/directions or orders of the Ex-U.P. Principal and their dispatches outside the State of U.P. are necessary ingredients for coming to the conclusion that the purchases had been made for and on behalf of Ex-U.P. Principal. Perusal of the order of the assessing authority as well as the order of the first appellate authority reveals that the transactions have not been properly examined in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of CST and others Vs. M/s Bakhtawar Lal Kailash Chand Arhti and others, (Supra).  Thus, Tribunal has rightly remanded back the matter to the assessing authority with the direction to examine the transactions afresh. Assessing authority is accordingly, directed to examine the transactions, claimed to have been made as purchasing commission agent for and on behalf of Ex-U.P. Principal in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of CST and others Vs. M/s Bakhtawar Lal Kailash Chand Arhti and others, (Surpa).

With the aforesaid observation, all the three revisions stand dismissed.

Dt.10.01.2007

R./

COURT NO.22

CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION FOR RECTIFICATIOIN NO.1432 OF 2002

IN

TRADE TAX REVISION NO.1060 OF 2000

AND

TRADE TAX REVISION NO.1061 OF 2000

M/s Ram Bharosey Lal Hari Shanker, Moradabad.       ....Applicant

Versus

The Commissioner of Trade Tax, U.P. at Lucknow.   .Opp.party

***************

Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.

Issue involved in the present revisions is whether the applicant acted as purchasing commission agent for and on behalf of Ex-U.P. Principal and the assessing authority was justified in rejecting the claim and treating the purchases of the applicant.  In appeal first appellate authority accepted the claim of the applicant. Commissioner of  Trade Tax filed appeal before the Tribunal. Tribunal by the impugned order remanded back the matter to the assessing authority to examine the transactions afresh and thereafter, pass the assessment order afresh. Therefore, the question involved in the present revisions was whether the Tribunal was justified in remanding back the matter to the assessing authority. This Court vide order dated 03.08.2001 has not adjudicated the issue involved in the present revisions and has upheld the order of the Tribunal on the ground that in the assessment order, it has been held that the applicant had realised the tax from the Ex-U.P. Principal while in the report assessing authority submitted that the tax had not been realised from the Ex-U.P. Principal and the Tribunal remanded back the matter to the assessing authority inasmuch as both the orders are contradictory. The real issue has not been considered by this Court. By means of the present application, applicant has sought rectification in the order dated 03.08.2001 passed by this Court.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the real issue involved in the revisions has not been adjudicated, thus, order of this Court is liable to be recalled and both the revisions be decided afresh. Learned Standing Counsel has not disputed the aforesaid submissions.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, in my view, order dated 03.08.2001 passed by this Court is to be recalled, inasmuch as real issue involved in the present revisions  has not been adjudicated at all.

Application is allowed.

Order dated 03.08.2001 is accordingly, recalled and the Trade Tax Revision Nos.1060 and 1061 of 2000 are restored to its original number.

Dt.10.01.2007

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.