Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

THE COMMISSIONER, TRADE TAX, U.P. LUCKNOW versus S/S AGARWAL TRADERS, JALAUN

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


The Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P. Lucknow v. S/S Agarwal Traders, Jalaun - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 789 of 2001 [2007] RD-AH 5754 (30 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

Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.

Heard Learned Standing Counsel.

By the impugned order Tribunal has accepted the claim of the dealer/opposite party (hereinafter referred to as "Dealer") about the purchases made for and on behalf of Ex.-U.P. Principal. Tribunal held that the dealer had furnished the complete details of the purchases and its dispatch. Purchases were made from the farmers and some were made from the registered dealer. In 6R relating to the purchases made from the farmers name of the Ex-U.P. Principal and the purchases made from the registered dealer name of Ex-U.P. Principal are mentioned. This finding is also available in the assessment record. Assessing authority rejected the claim  merely on the ground that the details of the payment by the Ex-U.P. Principal could not be furnished. Finding of the Tribunal that the purchases were made for and on behalf of Ex-U.P. Principal and after the purchases same were despatched at the destination of the Ex-U.P. Principal in the course of inter-State purchases is finding of fact. Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax and others Vs. M/s Bakhtawar Lal Kailash Chand Arhti and others, reported in 1992 UPTC, 971 held that the purchases made for and on behalf of Ex.-U.P. Principal and its despatches thereafter are the purchases in the course of inter-State and is not liable to purchase tax as well as Central Sales Tax.

In the result, Trade Tax Revisions No.789 and 809 of 2001 fail and are accordingly, dismissed.

Dt.30.03.07

R./789/01


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.