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 Up Lko. v. S/S Jayanti Prasad Naresh Chandra - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 1248 of 1995 [2004] RD-AH 1149 (12 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).


Court no. 55

Trade Tax Revision no. 1248 of 1995.

Commissioner of Trade Tax, U. P. Lucknow. ... Revisionist.


S/S Jainti Prasas Naresh Chandra, Meerut. ...Respondent.

Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.

             The present revision under Section 11 of U. P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as ''Act') is directed against the order of Tribunal dated 31.7.1995 relating to assessment year 1976-77.

              The following question has been raised:-

  "Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, Sales Tax Tribunal, Meerut was legally justified to quash the amount imposed under Section 3-B of the U. P. Sales Tax Act ignoring the provisions of Section 9 (2-A) of the Central Sales Tax Act?

                The brief facts of the case are that the applicant had purchased Khand for and on behalf of Ex-U. P. Principal in its Purchasing Commission Agency and dispatched the same outside the State of U. P. at the destination of Ex- U. P. Principal.  While making the purchases, opp. party dealer issued Form 3-C (1).  Claim of dealer-opp. party was that the purchases of goods for and on behalf of Ex- U. P. Principal had been accepted and no tax had been levied under the U. P. Trade Tax Act in view of decision of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Hanuman Trading Company reported in 1979 UPTC page 809 and in view of decision of Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax and others  Vs. M/S Bakhtawar Lal Kailash Chandra Arhti & others reported in 1992 UPTC  page 971.    However, tax had been imposed under Section 3-B on the ground that the dealer had issued Form 3-C (1), as a result of which tax ceasable to be leviable and the Form had been wrongly issued.  Tribunal has deleted the tax levied under Section 3-B.

               Heard Counsel for the parties.

               Issue involved in the present revision is squarely covered by the decision of Apex Court in the case of C.S.T Vs. M/S Bakhtawar Lal Kailash Chandra (supra).  The Apex Court held as follows:-

                 "A further question arises in this appeal.  The respondent dealer who is situated similarly to the respondent dealer in Civil Appeal no. 1809 of 1982, issued Forms-III-C-I and paid tax on the purchases made by him under the U. P. Sales Tax Act.  However, after the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Hanuman Trading Company, he claimed refund of the tax paid by him and probably got it, contending that the purchases effected by him were not assessable to tax under the  U. P. Sales Tax Act.  He was then proceeded against under Section 3-B of the U. P. Sales Tax Act which provides that if a person issues a false or wrong certificate or declaration prescribed under the provisions of the said Act and the rules thereunder to another person by  reason of which "a tax leviable under this Act" on the transaction is not collected (or collected at a lesser rate), then the person issuing such wrong or false certificate/declaration becomes himself liable to pay such tax.  The case of the authorities was that the respondent dealer represented to the authorities by issuing Form-III C-I that the purchases effected by him are intra State purchases liable to be taxed under the State enactment and thereby prevented the authorities from taxing the transactions under the Central Sales Tax Act; he must, therefore, make good that tax amount.  Assuming that what the authorities say is true, even so the respondent dealer cannot be proceeded against under Section 3-B for the reason that the said Section applies to a situation where the tax "leviable under this Act" i. e. State Act, is evaded.  It does not apply where the tax payable under the Central enactment is evaded.  This appeal has to be dismissed on this short ground alone, and is accordingly dismissed."

                Following the aforesaid decision, revision fails and is accordingly dismissed.




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.