Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

THE COMMISSIONER TRADE TAX, U.P. LUCKNOW versus S/S SOMANI STEELS LTD.

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 Somani Steels Ltd. - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 991 of 1996 [2004] RD-AH 1108 (8 October 2004)

 

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.55

TRADE TAX REVISION NO.991 OF 1996

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

Versus

S/S Somani Steels Limited, 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 order of Tribunal dated 20.04.1996 relating to the assessment year 1980-81 under the U.P. Trade Tax Act.

During the year under consideration, dealer/opposite party (hereinafter referred to as "Dealer")  had sold the goods to M/s Durga Steel Suppliers, Ghaziabad. Assessing authority had denied the exemption on the basis of the said Form 3-B on the ground that the purchasing dealer, M/s Durga Steel Suppliers, Ghaziabad is not traceable. First appeal was allowed and the exemption on the basis of said Form 3-B was allowed. Commissioner of Trade Tax filed second appeal before the Tribunal, which was rejected.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Tribunal has recorded a categorical finding that  M/s Durga Steel Suppliers, Ghaziabad was registered dealer and the Form 3-B was properly filled. It has also been observed that no case of any collusion or any kind of fraud has been made out by the assessing authority and merely because the firm is not traceable, exemption against Form 3-B could not be denied.

I have perused the order of the Tribunal and the authorities below.

I do not find any merit in the present revision. When the form was issued, firm was duly registered. No case has been made out that the said Form 3-B was forged and have been obtained as a result of collusion between the parties.

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

Dt.08.10.2004

R./


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.