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. Om Transport Corporation Opp.Diam.Pet.Pump M.P. - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION DEFECTIVE No. 91 of 1996 [2004] RD-AH 1247 (28 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. (91) of 1996.

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


M/S Om Transport Corporation, Indor. ... 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 13.5.1996 relating to assessment year 1992-93.

              It appears that at the Entry Check Post Sainya, Driver of the Vehicle obtained transit pass as contemplated under Section 28-B in respect of 142 items and while surrendering the same at the Exit Check Post, it was found that 104 items were of different batch number which were mentioned in the Excise Gate Pass and therefore, it was inferred 103 which were loaded from outside the State of U. P. have been sold inside the State of U. P. and another 104 items of the same nature of goods were loaded inside the State of U. P. and for the alleged violation, goods were seized and a penalty proceeding under Section 15-A (1) (q) was initiated.  Opp. party filed reply which was not accepted and a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- was levied towards penalty.  First appeal filed by the opp. party was allowed in part and amount of penalty was reduced to Rs.88,000/-.  Opp.party filed second appeal before the Tribunal, which was allowed.  Tribunal accepted the explanation of opp. party that the same goods for which, Form 34 was obtained was presented at the Exit Check Post and in respect of which, Form 34 was surrendered.  While coming to the conclusion, Tribunal relied upon the certificate issued by the consigner and consignee, in which, they have admitted the despatch and receipt of the goods outside the State of U. P.  Tribunal held that the presumption raised under Section 28-B has been accordingly rebutted and accordingly, penalty was deleted.  I do not find any error in the order of Tribunal.  Finding of Tribunal is the finding fact and is based on material on record and do not requires any interference.

             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.