Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

THE COMMISIONER TRADE TAX U.P. LUCKNOW versus JAGDISH RAI SHYYAM 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 Shyyam Mohan Arhati - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 607 of 2000 [2007] RD-AH 6392 (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. 607 of  2000.

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

Vs

M/S Jagdish Rai Shyam Mohan, Muzaffarnagar... Opp. Party.

Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J

Present revision under Section 11 of U. P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as ''Act') is directed against the order of the Tribunal dated 15.12.1999 relating to the assessment year 1982-83 under the U. P. Trade Tax Act.

Though, three questions have been raised in the present revision, but during the course of hearing, Sri B. K. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel submitted that only question 'a' arises for the assessment year 1982-83 and other questions 'b' and 'c' does not arise for this year.  The question 'a' reads as follows:-

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

The claim of the dealer was that it had sold the goods to Crusher owners in its Selling Commission Agency and in respect thereof, issued Form 3-C (4).  The Assessing Authority rejected the claim of the dealer on the ground that on enquiry, some of the dealer have accepted that they have sold the goods to M/S Jagdish Rai Shyam Mohan, and accordingly, levied the tax on the purchases treating the dealer as the first purchaser.  The Tribunal held that despite the opportunity of cross examination was sought by the dealer, opportunity of cross examination was not afforded by the Assessing Authority and the Department had not furnished the details that which dealer had given such statements.  The Tribunal further held that even during the course of  hearing, the State Representative could not produce any evidence in this regard.  The Tribunal accordingly, rejected the plea and deleted the tax.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

I do not find any error in the order of the Tribunal.

Learned Standing Counsel is not able to controvert the findings recorded by the Tribunal.  The findings of the Tribunal is the finding of fact, which does not require any interference.  In the circumstances, the revision is devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed.

In the result, revision fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.

Dt:06.04.2007.

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.