Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

THE COMMISSIONER, TRADE TAX U.P.LUCKNOW versus S/S SHAH CHAPPPAL STORES

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 Shah Chapppal Stores - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 88 of 1996 [2003] RD-AH 2 (6 January 2003)

 

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.25

Trade Tax Revision no. 88 Of 1996

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

                                                                     Versus

M/S Shah Chappal Stores, Gorakhpur..................Opp. Party

Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.

This is revision under Section 11 of U. P. Trade Tax Act against the order of Tribunal, Trade Tax, Gorakhpur dated 16.9.1995 relating to assessment year 1987-88.

The assessee was carrying on the business of Foot-wears.  The assessee has maintained the books of accounts and disclosed taxable turn over at Rs.19,28,845.26 Paise.  The Assessing Authority has rejected the books of accounts and estimated taxable turn over at Rs.22,13,502.55 Paise.  Aggrieved by the assessment order, the dealer filed an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner (Judl.), Trade Tax, Gorakhpur which was dismissed.  The dealer further filed Second Appeal before the Trade Tax Tribunal, Gorakhpur.  The Tribunal vide its order dated 16.9.1995, allowed the appeal.  The Tribunal has accepted the books of accounts and has also accepted the taxable turn over at Rs.19,28,845.26 Paise.  Being aggrieved by the order of Tribunal, the present revision is being filed by the Commissioner of Trade Tax.

I have heard Sri Mansha Ram Jaiswal, learned Standing Counsel for the applicant and Sri Bharat Ji Agarwal, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Piyush Agarwal.  The learned Standing Counsel contended that the Assessing Authority rejected the books of accounts on the basis of adverse materials found at the time of survey dated 29.6.1997 made by Trade Tax Officer (S.I.B.).  It has been contended that the Tribunal was not justified in accepting the books of accounts in the presence of incriminating material.  It has also been submitted that the Tribunal has erred in accepting the disclosed turnover.

I have perused the order of the Tribunal and the authorities below. The Tribunal while accepting the books of accounts and has dealt all the materials which were found at the time of survey dated 29.6.1997 and other objection raised by the Assessing Authority for the rejection of books of accounts.  The Tribunal has accepted the explanation of dealer in respect of each and every objection of the Assessing Authority.  In my opinion, there is no error in the order of the Tribunal and finding of the Tribunal are the finding of fact which do not require any interference.  The Tribunal has observed that in the previous years, the taxable turn over has been estimated after adding expenses and profits at 15% on the purchase price of Foot-wears  other than Foot-wears purchased from Lakhani Company, the Tribunal has adopted the same method

for estimating the turn over in this year also.  In the case of Foot-wears purchased from M/S Lakhani  Company,  it  has  been  observed  that  the  dealer  was agent of M/S Lakhani Company and sale was in wholesale, the margin of profit was less and accordingly taken the profit at 3%.  Taking into account, the expenses and the margin of profit at 3% taxable turn over was estimated.  On the consideration of sales of Foot-wears made against Form3-A and export sales turn over disclosed by the dealer at Rs.19,28,845.26 Paise was found to be correct and reasonable.  I find no error in the order of the Tribunal in this regard.  Question of law is involved in the present revision.   Finding of Tribunal are finding of fact and based on the appreciation of material on record and need no interference.

The revision lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine.

Dt:06.01.2003.

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.