Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

M/S RAM CHANDRA NAURRAM versus COMMISSIONER S.T

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


M/S Ram Chandra Naurram v. Commissioner S.T - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 1606 of 1993 [2004] RD-AH 346 (22 July 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

Sales Tax Revision no. 1606 of 1993.

M/s Ram Chandra Nanu Ram, Bareilly   ...........................Revisionist.

Vs.

Commissioner of Sales Tax, U. P. Lucknow.........................Respondent.

Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.

The present revision under Section 11 of U. P. Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as Act) is directed against the order of Tribunal dated 8.9.1993 relating to the assessment year 1987-88.

The claim of the applicant is that it had not carried on any business of Khand under the Central Sales Tax Act.  It is claimed that during the year under consideration, applicant had not dispatched any Khand outside the State of U. P. in the course of interstate sales or on consignment basis or in any manner whatsoever.  Assessing Authority passed an assessment order against the applicant on the basis of entries found in the books of account and documents seized from the possession of M/S Pachpeda Crushers, Pilibhit by the Sales Tax Officer (SIB) on 24.2.1988.  Assessing Authority estimated the interstate sales at Rs.30,00,000/-.  First appeal filed by the dealer was allowed in part.  First Appellate Authority estimated the interstate sales at Rs.22,00,000/-.  Against the order of First Appellate Authority, dealer as well as Commissioner of Sales Tax filed appeals before the Tribunal.  Tribunal by impugned order rejected both the appeals.  Being aggrieved by the order of Tribunal, present revision has been filed.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.  Contention of learned Counsel for the applicant is that the applicant had not dispatched any goods outside the State of U. P. in any manner whatsoever.  He further submitted that the alleged seized documents which were found from the premises of  M/S Pachpeda Crushers, Pilibhit do not indicate movement of goods by the applicant to outside the State of U. P.  No entry relating to any transaction was found which shows that the applicant had dispatched any goods outside the State of U. P.  He further submitted that earlier the case was remanded back by the Tribunal for providing opportunity of cross-examination of Partners of M/S Pachpeda Crushers, Pilibhit. He submitted that in the assessment proceedings, though, no one appears on behalf of M/S Pachpeda Crushers, Pilibhit for cross-examination, a reply was filed by the partner Sri Saroj Singh of M/S Pachpeda Crushers, Pilibhit before the Assessing Authority, in which, it had been categorically stated that they had sent goods outside the State of U. P. to the Commission Agent directly in their name for sale and Mandi Gate Pass, Sale Invoice, Draft relating to payment and Form-F etc. have been received by them and they are all in their names and have no concerned to M/S Ram Chandra Nanu Ram.

I have perused the order of Tribunal and authorities below.   On the query being made  by the Bench from the learned Standing Counsel to point out any of the entry from the Books of account or document seized from M/S Pachpeda Crushers which refers  the movement of goods by the applicant outside the State of U.P.  Learned Standing Counsel is not able to point out any entry or any material to establish the dispatch of any goods by the applicant outside the State of U. P.  Order of Tribunal and the authorities below also not referred any material, which establishes the movement of goods outside the State of U. P. by the applicant.  Entries of seized documents, which were found from the possession of M/S Pachpeda Crushers, Pilibhit referred in the order also does not establish any movement of goods by the applicant to outside the State of U. P.  Reply filed by M/S Pachpeda Crushers, Pilibhit which is Annexure-3 to the revision also shows that they have admitted the dispatch of goods outside the State of U. P. for sale to their Commission Agent by them.  Unless movement of goods outside the State of U. P. by the applicant is established,  applicant can not be taxed for any interstate sales.  For the interstate sales under Section 3 of Central Sales Tax Act, primary condition is the movement of goods to outside the State of U. P.  Movement of goods outside the State of U. P. by the applicant is not established, therefore, estimate of turnover of interstate sales in the hands of the applicant is arbitrary and without any basis and can not be sustained.

In the result, revision is allowed.  Order of Tribunal dated 8.9.1993 relating to assessment year 1987-88 so for it relates to the Central Sales Tax Act is concerned, is set aside.

Dt:22.7.2004.

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.