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


M/S Goverdhan Trading Co. v. C.S.T. - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 1469 of 1993 [2004] RD-AH 1367 (9 November 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).




M/sGoverdhan Trading Company, Agra.                             Applicant.


Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. Lucknow.                        Opp-party.


Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.

Present revision under section 11 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") is directed against the order of the Tribunal dated 16th June, 1993 relating to the assessment year, 1983-84.

Assessing authority has levied penalty under section 15-A (1) (c) of the Act on the ground that the turnover had been concealed by the dealer. Said order of the assessing authority has been confirmed by the first appellate authority and by the Tribunal.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that vide order dated 23.11.1991, Tribunal has quashed the order passed under section 21 of the Act and deleted the tax levied and, therefore, no penalty can be sustained under section 15-A (1) (c ) of the Act. I find force in the argument of the learned counsel for the applicant.

Section 15-A (1) ( c ) of the Act reads as follows:

" Section 15-A. Penalties in certain cases,

(1) If the assessing authority is satisfied that any dealer or other person -

     ( c ) has concealed particulars of his turnover or has deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars of such turnover.

Once the tax levied under section 21 of the Act in pursuance of which penalty under section 15-A (1) ( c ) of the Act was levied has been deleted, there is no question of sustaining the penalty. In the case of P & B Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd Versus Collector of Central Excise reported in (2003) 3 S.C.C. page 599, Apex Court held that once show cause notice is quashed, penalty cannot be sustained. This court has upheld the order of the Tribunal dated 23.11.1991 in Sales Tax Revision no.744 of 1992 decided on 09.11.2004.

For the reasons stated above, penalty is hereby quashed.

In the result, revision is allowed. Order of the Tribunal dated 16th June, 1993 is set aside and the penalty is quashed.

Dt.  09.11.2004.



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.