High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
C.S.T. v. C.Lal - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 861 of 1991  RD-AH 11 (8 January 2003)
Sales Tax Revision no. 861 of 1991
The Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P.Lucknow..............Applicant.
S/S Chotey Lal Contractor, Dhampur ............Opp.party.
Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.
This is revision under Section 11 of U. P. Sales Tax Act against the order of Tribunal, Moradabad dated 23.11.1990 for the assessment year 1980-81.
The brief facts of the case are that the Sales Tax Officer, Dhampur received an information from P. W. D. about the payments to the dealer-opp. Party for supply of Stones blast. On the basis of the said information, proceedings was initiated against the dealer. Before the Assessing Authpority, assessee contended that the payment was received for the execution of works contract in which Stone ballast was supplied and therefore, not taken to tax. However, no evidence was filed in support of contention, Assessing Authority disbelieved the plea of dealer and estimated the turn over of Stone ballast at of Rs.1,45,423/-. Against the assessments order, appeal was dismissed by the Asstt. Commissioner (Judl.), Trade Tax, Moradabad. Against the order of Asstt. Commissioner (Judl.), Trade Tax, Moradabad, dealer filed appeal before the Tribunal, Moradabad. The Tribunal vide its order dated 23.11.1990, allowed the appeal and declared the dealer not taxable. Being aggrieved by the said order, Commissioner Trade Tax, filed the present revision.
I have heard Sri Mansha Ram Jaiswal, learned Standing Counsel. Inspite of service, Opp. Party has not put any appearance. The learned Standing Counsel contended that the Tribunal has erred in holding that the dealer has collected the stone blast and has transferred at a specific place and only received collection charges. It has been contended that the Tribunal has wrongly treated the supply of Stone blast as the work contract. I have perused the order of Tribunal and authorities below. I am of the view that the finding of Tribunal is based on no material. The assessment order shows that no evidence was filed by the dealer to establish the contract as the work contract. The finding of the Tribunal that only collection charges were received is
based on no material and are perverse. The matter is remanded back to the Tribunal to examine the material on record and to decided whether it was the case of supply of Stone blast, for which the payment was received or the payment was received for any other purpose.The order of Tribunal dated 23.11.1990 for the assessment year 1980-81 in Appeal no.514 of 1987 is set aside, the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal to decide the case afresh.
The revision is allowed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.