Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

THE COMMISIONER TRADE TAX U.P. LUCKNOW versus JAGDISH RAI SHYAM MOHAN ARHATI

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


The Commisioner Trade Tax U.P. Lucknow v. Jagdish Rai Shyam Mohan Arhati - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 608 of 2000 [2007] RD-AH 6390 (6 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

COURT NO.22

TRADE TAX REVISION NO.608 OF 2000

AND

TRADE TAX REVISION NO.609 OF 2000

The Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P., Lucknow.       ....Applicant

Versus

S/S Jagdish Rai Shyam Mohan Arhati,

Muzaffarnagar.   .Opp.party

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

Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.

These two revisions under Section 11 of U.P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as "Act") are directed against the order of Tribunal dated 15.12.1999 relating to the assessment year 1981-82 both under U.P. Trade Tax Act as well as Central Sales Tax Act.

At the instance of revenue in Trade Tax Revision No.608 of 2000 following two questions have been raised:

"a). Whether Trade Tax Tribunal was legally justified to accept the claim of exemption on interstate sale despite the facts available on record proved that the dealer has made first purchase of Gur inside the State and thereafter sold them to Ex.U.P. dealer ?"

b). Whether Trade Tax Tribunal was legally justified to accept the claim of dealer of inter state purchase without recording any findings on the mode of transaction and the instructions received from Ex.U.P. Principals ?"

At the instance of revenue in Trade Tax Revision No.609 of 2000 following two questions have been raised:

a) Whether Trade Tax Tribunal was legally justified to exempt the purchase of Gur for which the dealer has issued Form 3C (4) and this purchase is proved first purchase inside U.P. from the facts available on record ?

b) Whether Trade Tribunal was legally justified to accept the claim of dealer of interstate purchase without recording any findings on the mode of transaction and the instructions received from Ex.U.P. Principals ?

c) Whether Trade Tax Tribunal was legally justified to exempt the purchase of Gur for which no form was available on record ?"

So far as first question no. (a) of Trade Tax Revision No.609 of 2000  is concerned similar issue arose in Trade Tax Revision No. 607 of 2000 decided on 06.04.2007 relating to the assessment year 1982-83. This Court dismissed the revision filed by the Commissioner of Trade Tax and upheld the order of the Tribunal.

Questions no.(a) and (b) of Trade Tax Revision No.608 of 2000 and (b) and (c) of Trade Tax Revision No.609 of 2000 relates to the purchases of gur claimed to have made for and on behalf of Ex.-U.P. Principal for Rs.8,84706/- of gur. Assessing authority rejected the claim of the dealer and levied the tax on the purchases and also treated the dispatches of gur as inter-State sales. In first appeal Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) vide order dated 08.09.1999 dismissed both the appeals. Dealer filed two appeals before the Tribunal. Tribunal by the impugned order accepted the claim of the dealer/opposite party (hereinafter referred to as "Dealer") and held that the purchases were made in the course of inter-State purchases.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Learned Standing Counsel submitted that the first appellate authority recorded the categorical finding that the dealer has not adduced any evidence that the goods were purchased on the orders/instructions of the Ex-U.P. Principal. It has also been held that no details have been furnished by the dealer as to when the goods were purchased and dispatched outside the State of U.P. at the destination of Ex-U.P. Principal. He submitted that  the Tribunal has not considered the findings recorded by the first appellate authority. He further submitted that the Tribunal without examining the transactions and giving the details in respect thereof has accepted the plea of the dealer and deleted the tax on the purchases and sales under Central Sales Tax Act. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party relied upon the order of the Tribunal.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the order of the Tribunal and the authorities below.

Perusal of the order of the Tribunal reveals that the Tribunal has not examined the nature of the transactions. Tribunal has only observed that the dealer after purchasing the goods, dispatched the same outside the State of U.P. and charged the commission. Tribunal has not referred any order of the Ex-U.P. Principal that when the goods were purchased and when the same were dispatched outside the State of U.P. Thus, order of the Tribunal is vitiated and liable to be set aside.

Perusal of the assessment order reveals that the nature of the transactions has not been examined by the assessing authority in the light of the decision of the 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. In this view of the matter, I am of the view that the matter may be remanded back to the assessing authority for further examination of the transactions and the plea of the dealer in the light of the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax and others Vs. M/S Bakhtawar Lal Kailash Chand Arhti and others (Supra).

In the result, both the revisions are allowed in part. Order of the Tribunal is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the assessing authority to pass the assessment orders afresh in the light of the observations made above.

Dt.06.04.2007

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.