Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


The Commissioner Trade Tax v. S/S Ravel Singh - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 892 of 2000 [2007] RD-AH 972 (15 January 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).




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


S/S Ravel Singh, T.P. Nagar, Kanpur.                                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 orders of Tribunal dated 22.04.2000  relating to the assessment year 1991-92.

The Check Post Officer passed the assessment orders under section 7 (4) of the Act against the opposite party on the ground that Form 34, which were obtained at the entry check post have been got passed by manipulation. First appellate authority allowed the appeals and remanded back the matter. In second appeals, Tribunal allowed the appeals and quashed the orders passed under section 7 (4) of the Act. Tribunal held that on the same ground penalty under section 15-A (1) (q) of the Act were levied and same were quashed by the Tribunal. Tribunal also held that inference of the sale of the goods inside the State of U.P. could only be drawn in case, if it is found that Form 34 have not been surrendered at the exit check post.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Learned Standing Counsel has produced Form 34 and Panji 3. Learned Standing Counsel states that Form 34 was issued on 26th February, 1992, while the same was passed on 11.06.1992 after the lapse of more than three months, therefore, inference has been drawn that Forms were passed by manipulation

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

Perusal of Form 34 shows that it was duly passed by the officer of the exit check post on 11.06.1992. Perusal of Form 34 also reveals that there is a seal and the signature of the officer of the exit check post, therefore, if any manipulation would have been done, the same could be by the officer of the exit check post. However, Form 34 does not show prima facie any collusion or any involvement of the opposite party.

Perusal of the assessment orders passed under section 7 (4) of the Act reveal that no reason or basis has been given by the assessing authority for coming to the conclusion that Form 34 were got passed by manipulation.  There is only a vague assertion in the order that on enquiry, Transporter was not found in existence and on enquiry, it was found that either the parties who had to receive the goods were not in existence or they have not purchased the goods.  It is not the case of the Revenue that the alleged Form 34 have not been passed at the entry check post and the signature of the officer passing the Form 34 is not genuine and entries in the relevant record are not available in this regard.  Section 28-B only raises the presumption of sale of goods inside the State of U. P. in respect of which, Form 34 was obtain and such Form is not found surrendered at the Exit Check Post.  In the present case, such presumption can not be drawn, inasmuch as, the Form 34 being passed as per record.  Learned Standing Counsel is not able to tell that what action has been taken against the officer, who was involved in the manipulation. In the circumstances, there is no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal.

However, Commissioner of Trade Tax is directed to make necessary enquiry about the alleged manipulation in the record of the check post Officer and to take necessary action against the Officers and Staff, who were involved in the manipulation as alleged by the assessing authority in its order passed under section 7 (4) of the Act.  The loss suffered by the revenue may also be recovered from the guilty Officers and Staff involved in the manipulation.

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

Copy of this order may be sent to the Commissioner of Trade Tax, U. P. Lucknow for necessary action




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


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 |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.