Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

MODI RUBBER LTD.GHAZIABAD versus COMMISSIONER TRADE TAX,U.P.LUCKNOW

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Modi Rubber Ltd.Ghaziabad v. Commissioner Trade Tax,U.P.Lucknow - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 317 of 1996 [2004] RD-AH 1707 (14 December 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. 317 of 1996.

Modi Rubber Ltd., Ghaziabad. ... Revisionist.

Vs

Commissioner of Trade Tax, U. P. Lucknow. ...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 18.12.1995 relating to assessment year 1987-88 under the Central Sales Tax Act.  

Short question raised by the applicant is relating to levy of additional tax on the interstate sales  without Form-C and interest demanded thereon.

Heard Counsel for the parties.

Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that the Commissioner of Trade Tax on the basis of Govt. Order issued a Circular, in which, it was held that additional tax was not chargeable under the Central Sales Tax Act.  Following the said Circular, this Court in the case of M/S U. P. Ceramics & Potteries Ltd.Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax reported in 1992 U. P. T. C. page 1333 held that the additional tax is not leviable so long Circular was not withdrawn.  In my opinion, issue involved in the present revision is covered by the decision of this Court in the case of M/S U. P. Ceramics and Potteries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax (supra), in which, it is held that the additional tax is not leviable in view of Circular issued by the Govt.  Circular has been held binding upon the revenue.  In the case of CST  Vs. M/S Indra Industries reported in 2000 U. P.T. C. page 472, it has been held by the Apex Court that the Circular is binding upon the revenue even if contrary to the statute.  

In the circumstances, revision is allowed.  Order of Tribunal is set aside on the aforesaid issue and the Tribunal is directed to pass appropriate order under Section 11 (8) of the Act.

Dt:14.12.2004.

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.