Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

THE COMMISSIONER versus S/S RAM AUTAR AND SONS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


The Commissioner v. S/S Ram Autar And Sons - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 1141 of 1996 [2004] RD-AH 1496 (23 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).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court no. 55

Trade Tax Revision no. 1141 of 1996.

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

Vs

M/S Ram Autar & Sons, Hapur. ... Respondent.

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 3.6.1996 relating to the assessment year 1989-90.

The following question of law has been raised in the present revision:-

"Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Trade Tax Tribunal was legally justified to keep a commission agent and a pucca arhati in the same category contrary to the findings of Hon'ble Supreme Court."

Heard Counsel for the parties.  

On the perusal of order of Tribunal, it appears that the question raised in the present revision does not arise from the order of Tribunal.  Question, which has been adjudicated by the Tribunal, is whether the purchases made on behalf of Ex- U. P. Principal was not liable to tax being purchases in the course of interstate.  Tribunal held that the opp. party had made purchases on behalf of Ex-U. P. Principal, for which, maintained Order Register and dispatched the goods at the destination of Ex-U. P. Principal.  Finding of Tribunal is the finding of fact.  Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of C.S.T Vs. M/S Bakhtawar Lal Kailash Chandra reported in 1992 UPTC  page 971, has been held the purchases made on behalf of Ex- U. P. Principal and dispatch of goods outside the State of U. P. at the destination of Ex- U. P. Principal in the course of interstate purchases and not liable to tax under the U. P. Trade Tax Act.

For the reasons stated above, the above question raised does no arise from the order of Tribunal and the view taken by the Tribunal is concluded by finding of fact.

In the result, revision fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.

Dt:23.11.2004.

MZ/-


Copyright

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

Advertisement

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 |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.