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


Commissioner of Sales Tax, U. P. Lucknow. v. S/S Executive Engineer, .Roorkee. - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 47 of 1993 [2004] RD-AH 1207 (26 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

Sales Tax Revision no. 47 of 1993.

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


S/S Executive Engineer, .Roorkee. ... Respondent.

Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.

             The present revision under Section 11 of U. P. Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as ''Act') is directed against the order of Tribunal dated 22.9.1992 relating to assessment year 1987-88.

             Opp. party had purchased a Jeep for Rs.1,07,598.88 Paise for which, issued  Form -C.  Admittedly, opp. party was not registered for purchase of Jeep under the Central Sales Tax Act and therefore, a penalty proceeding under Section 10-A was initiated and a sum of Rs.6,456/- was levied towards penalty.  First appeal filed by the opp. party was rejected.   Tribunal allowed the Second appeal.  Learned Standing Counsel submitted that the Tribunal has deleted the penalty only on the ground that the Jeep was required to look after the work and there was no malafide on the part of the opp. party which was wholly irrelevant for the purposes of penalty under Section 10-A read with Section 10-(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act

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

        .  Section 10-b of the Central Sales Tax Act reads as follows:-

           "Being a registered dealer, falsely represents when purchasing any class of goods that goods of such class are covered by his certificate of registration; or "

           For the purposes of invoking Section 10-(b) what is  required to be considered is whether the dealer falsely represents when purchasing any class of goods that goods of such class are covered by his Certificate of registration.  In the present case, admittedly, dealer was not registered for the Jeep and therefore, it was not entitled to issue Form -C while making the purchases, therefore, while issuing Form -C, he has falsely represented that it was registered for Jeep.  Tribunal has deleted the penalty on irrelevant consideration.

      In the result, revision is allowed.  Order of Tribunal dated 22.9.1992 is set aside.



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.