Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

THE COMMISSIONER, TRADE TAX, U.P., LUCKNOW versus M/S. MALTINGS LTD. SARDHANA ROAD, MEERUT

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


The Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P., Lucknow v. M/S. Maltings Ltd. Sardhana Road, Meerut - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 1743 of 1994 [2004] RD-AH 1204 (25 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.1743 OF 1994

AND

TRADE TAX REVISION NO.1742 OF 1994

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

Versus

M/s Maltings Ltd., Meerut. ....Opp.party

...............

Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.

These two revisions under Section 11 of U.P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as "Act") are directed against the order of Tribunal dated 12.08.1994 relating to the assessment years 1984-85 and 85-86. Since common question is involved in both the revisions, same are being decided together.

The brief facts of the case that the dealer/opposite party (hereinafter referred to as "Dealer") entered into a contract with Central Distillery, Meerut for the supply of IMFL. Under the contract dealer had to supply the bottles. The supply was to be made at stipulated rate. In the case of Central Distillery, Meerut supply of IMFL was treated as sale to the dealer and the price of the bottles has also been included in the turn over, which was subsequently deleted by the Tribunal and this Court in Sales Tax Revision No.1324 of 1993 decided on 29.09.2004 upheld the order of the Tribunal. In the case of dealer, assessing authority levied the tax on the IMFL supplied by the Central Distillery, Meerut on the ground that IMFL was manufactured by Central Distillery, Meerut as per the agreement and after the manufacturing  dealer made the first sale and therefore, was manufacturer in view of section 2 (ee) of the Act. Tribunal by the impugned order deleted the tax on the ground that the dealer was having FL-2 licence, under which there was no authority to manufacture and it was only for carrying of the trading business. Tribunal further held that in respect of supply of IMFL Central Distillery, Meerut had been treated as the manufacturer and no case of under billing or any suppression was found and tax has been assessed.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Finding of the Tribunal are finding of fact. When in respect of the supply of IMFL Central Distillery, Meerut has been treated as the manufacturer and tax has been levied on the supply treating it as the first sale after the manufacturing, in respect of the same goods, present dealer can not be treated as the manufacturer. View of the Tribunal is accordingly, upheld.

In the result, both the revisions fail and are accordingly, dismissed.

Dt.25.10.2004

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.