Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

THE COMMISSIONER TRADE TAX U.P. LUCKNOW versus S/S RADHA KISHAN MILLS

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 Radha Kishan Mills - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 951 of 2001 [2007] RD-AH 6403 (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

Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.

Heard Learned Standing Counsel.

Dealer/opposite party (hereinafter referred to as "Dealer") was carrying on the business of manufacture and sales of rice. Dealer claimed to have closed the business in the assessment year 1992-93. It was claimed that no business activities had been carried on in the year under consider. The assessing authority received the information that the dealer had despatched the goods against bills no.357 and 377, dated 05.02.1996 and 25.01.1996 respectively. The goods were seized and subsequently, released on furnishing of security. These transactions were treated relating to the dealer and accordingly, assessments were made both under the U.P. Trade Tax Act as well as Central Sales Tax Act. It appears that on the basis of the seizure penalty under section 13-A (4) of U.P. Trade Tax Act  (hereinafter referred to as "Act") was also levied. Dealer denied any connection with such sales. Plea of the dealer was accepted and the penalty under section 13-A (4) of the Act was set aside. Appeals against the assessment orders both under the U.P. Trade Tax Act as well as Central Sales Tax were allowed by the first appellate authority. Commissioner of Trade Tax filed appeal under Central Sales Tax Act before the Tribunal. Tribunal by the impugned order dismissed the appeal. Tribunal held that the  business of the dealer was closed in the assessment year 1992-93 and the alleged transactions did not relate to it. Tribunal further held that the penalty under section 13-A (4) of the Act was set aside. Finding of the Tribunal is finding of fact. No question of law is involved in the present revision.

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

Dt.06.04.07

R./951/01


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.