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 Gulzari Lal Guptta Kachcha Arhti Sahar Bidhuna v. Commisioner Of Trade Tax U.P. At Lucknow - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 584 of 1996 [2004] RD-AH 1368 (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/s Gulzari Lal Gupta. ....Applicant


The Commission of Trade Tax, U.P., Lucknow. ....Opp.Party


Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.

Present revision under Section 11 of U.P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as "Act") is directed against the order of Tribunal dated 15.02.1996 relating to the assessment year 1981-82 under the U.P. Trade Tax Act.

Applicant was carrying on the business of food grains etc. Books of account have been rejected on the basis of discrepancies found at the time of survey dated 27.12.1981 and the turn over was enhanced by the assessing authority. Assessing authority levied the tax on the sale of food grains for which the requisite forms could not be filed. Applicant filed appeal before the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial). Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) rejected the appeal and confirmed the order of the assessing authority. Before the first appellate authority applicant had filed two forms bearing nos.157815 and 725530  relating to the transfer of paddy for Rs.2,34,496.50p. in respect of sales made to M/s Ghanshyam Das Ashok Babu, Achanda and another Form for Rs.10,350/-  in respect of sale to paddy to M/s Mangal Singh Jogendra Singh, Auraiya. Alleged two forms were accepted but the claim could not be allowed on the ground that  form was torned and there was cutting. Applicant filed second appeal before the Tribunal. Tribunal allowed the appeal in part. Tribunal has confirmed the rejection of books of account and reduced the suppressed turn over of paddy from Rs.1,50,000/- to Rs.1,10,000/-. Tribunal has also refused to allow the benefit against the alleged two forms on the ground that in the alleged two forms there was a cutting.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that estimate of suppressed turn over to Rs.1,10,000/- is arbitrary. He further submitted that the rejection of claim of exemption against the alleged two forms for Rs.2,34,496.50p. and Rs.10,350/- is not justified. He submitted that the cutting in the form was duly signed by the party concerned and in case of any doubt, same could be verified from the party concerned. He further submitted that for the purpose of removal of any defect in the form, the form should have been returned and the applicant should be provided opportunity to rectify the alleged objection in accordance to sub-Rule 24 of Rule 12-B.  Learned Standing Counsel supported the order of the Tribunal.

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

I do not find any substance in the argument of learned counsel for the applicant with regard to the estimate of the suppressed turn over of paddy estimated at Rs.1,10,000/-. The estimate has been made on the basis of the discrepancies found at the time of survey dated 27.12.1981 and needs no interference.

However, there is a force in the submission of learned counsel for the applicant with regard to the claim of exemption against the alleged two forms, which were filed before the first appellate authority for Rs.2,34,496.50p. and Rs.10,350/- relating to the sale of paddy. Alleged two forms were filed before the first appellate authority which were admitted. After having admitting of two forms, in case if appellate authority had any objection with regard to the cutting on the forms, proper opportunity should have been given to the applicant to get the said form rectify. It appears that such opportunity has not been given.

Rule 12-B (24) reads as follows:

"12-B. Exemption from purchase of [Trade Tax] under Section 3-D--- (1) The certificates or declarations referred to in sub-section (7) of Section 3-D shall be in Forms III-C (1), III-C (2).]

(24) If any minor omission or mistake is found in a certificate filed under sub-rule (12), it shall be returned to the dealer who filed it and he shall be given an opportunity of having the omission or mistake rectified by the dealer who issued it within the period allowed by the [Trade Tax] Officer:

Provided that the limitation for passing the assessment order in the case does not thereby expire."

In case of any mistake in the form, the said form should be returned to the dealer for necessary correction and opportunity should be given to rectify such mistake. In the present case, applicant has not been allowed such opportunity. In the circumstances, matter is remanded back to the assessing authority to consider the aforesaid two forms, which were filed before the appellate authority and consider the claim of exemption against the said two forms in accordance to the law after giving proper opportunity to the applicant.

In the result, revision is allowed in part. Order of the Tribunal is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the assessing officer to consider the claim of exemption against the alleged two forms relating to the sale of paddy after giving the proper opportunity to the applicant  in accordance to the law.




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.