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,U.P. Lucknow v. S/S Light & Co. - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 1161 of 1996 [2004] RD-AH 1211 (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

Trade Tax Revision no. 1161 of 1996.

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


M/S Light & Co., Bamrauli, Allahabad. ... 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 29.6.1996 relating to assessment year 1986-87.

              After passing the original assessment order, it was noticed from the balance sheet of the Company, which was on record that the dealer opp. party was sold Vehicles during the year under consideration, which could not be taxed in the original assessment order and therefore, a proceeding under Section 22 had initiated and an ex-parte order was passed which was subsequently reopened under Section 30 of the Act and thereafter, an order dated 24.5.1994 was passed, in which, tax on the value of Rs.29,000/- which relates to sale of two Vehicles during the year under consideration, purchased outside the State of U. P. had been levied.  First appeal filed by the dealer was allowed and order was set aside.  Commissioner of Trade Tax filed appeal before the Tribunal, which was rejected.  

           Heard Counsel for the parties.

           First Appellate Authority and the Tribunal have set aside the order passed under Section 22 on the ground that there was no mistake apparent on the face of record and after investigation and discussion, tax was levied on the imported Vehicles which was beyond the purview of Section 22.

            I have perused the order of Tribunal and the authorities below.  I do not find any error in the order of Tribunal.  Perusal of order passed under Section 22 shows that after investigation, it was found that two Vehicles were sold which were purchased from outside the State of U. P. therefore; it is not a case of mistake apparent on the face of record.  I do not find any reason to interfere with the order of Tribunal

             In the result, revision fails and is 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.