Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

COMMISSIONER OF TRADE TAX, U. P. LUCKNOW versus S/S JAWAHAR AUTOMOBILES, MORADABAD

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Commissioner of Trade Tax, U. P. Lucknow v. S/S Jawahar Automobiles, Moradabad - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 1131 of 1994 [2004] RD-AH 1545 (30 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. 1131 Of 1994.

And

Trade Tax Revision no. 1137 Of 1994.

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

Vs

S/S Jawahar Automobiles, Moradabad. ...  Respondent.

Hon'ble Rajes Kumar J.

             These two revisions under Section 11 of U. P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as ''Act') are directed against the order of Tribunal dated 19.2.1994 relating to the assessment years 1983-84 and 1984-85 respectively.  

It appears that during the year under consideration, dealer/opp. party (hereinafter referred to as ''dealer') had purchased body and got it mounted on the three Wheelers.   In the assessment order, no tax was levied under Section 3-AAAA on the purchase of body.  Deputy Commissioner (Executive) initiated a proceeding under Section 10-B of the Act on the ground that the body purchased was liable to tax under Section 3-AAAA and accordingly levied tax.  Dealer filed appeal before the Tribunal.  Tribunal allowed the appeal and deleted the tax levied under Section 3-AAAA.  Tribunal held that the body was purchased and got it mounted at Delhi and was not purchased inside the State of U. P., therefore, Section 3-AAAA does not apply.

Heard Counsel for the parties.

Issue involved is concluded by the finding of fact.  Learned Standing Counsel is not able to assail finding recorded by the Tribunal.  Body was purchased and got it mounted at Delhi was not purchased inside the State of U. P. and on this fact, Section 3-AAAA does not apply.

In the result, both the revisions fails and are dismissed.

Dt:30.11.2004.

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.