Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

THE COMMISSIONER, TRADE TAX, LUCKNOW versus S/S RAKESH CHEMICALS (P) LTD.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


The Commissioner, Trade Tax, Lucknow v. S/S Rakesh Chemicals (P) Ltd. - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 624 of 2001 [2007] RD-AH 5883 (2 April 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.

At the instance of the Revenue, following questions have been raised.

"A. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Trade Tax Tribunal is legally justified to accept the account books of the dealer despite the dealer has not maintained manufacturing account according to the provision of Section 12 (2) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act and the adverse material found on the survey dated 7.6.93 indicate otherwise"

B. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Trade Tax Tribunal was legally justified to accept the concession of Form C despite the Form C was not presented before the assessing authority and the first appellate authority after considering relevant facts rejected the claim of exemption?

C. Whether the Tribunal has properly utilized the adverse material available on record?"

So far as rejection of the books of account is concerned, finding of the Tribunal is finding of fact and need no interference.

Dealer had disclosed the turnover of paddy husk, which has been assessed to tax treating it as rice husk.  This Court in the case of Commissioner of Trade Tax Versus S/S U.P. Straw and Agro Product Ltd reported in 2004 UPTC 1125 held that paddy husk and rice husk are two different commodities and the paddy husk is not liable to tax at the point of purchase.

So far as claim of allowance of benefit against Form 3-B and Form C is concerned, I do not find any error in the order of the Tribunal accepting the forms. Only thing remains that after accepting the forms, opportunity should be given to the Revenue authority to rebut, but in the grounds of appeal, no error has been pointed out in the forms. Since the involvement of the amount of tax is very nominal, it would not appropriate  to interfere.

In the result, revision nos.624 and 790 of 2001 fail and are, accordingly, dismissed.

Dated.2.4.2007.

VS.624/01.


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.