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


Commissioner Trade Tax v. Oreson Electronics Ltd. - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 1202 of 1994 [2004] RD-AH 389 (29 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).


Court no. 55

Trade Tax Revision no. 1202 of 1994.

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


M/S Orsen Electronics Ltd., Ghaziabad...............................Respondent.

Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.

The present revision under Section 11 of U. P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as Act) is directed against the order of Tribunal dated 19.5.1994 relating to the assessment years 1985-86.  The following question of law has been raised:-

"Whether the Trade Tax Tribunal was legally justified to reduce the imposed tax despite the fact that incriminating evidences available on record indicate otherwise?"

Heard learned Standing Counsel.  No one appears on behalf of opp.party.  During the year under consideration, applicant had issued credit notes for Rs.11,91,668.37 Paise relating to the goods returned.  Assessing Authority rejected the claim of goods returned on the ground that in view of Section 7 (1-D) revised return was not filed as it should have been filed within thirty days. In the appeal filed by the dealer, claim was allowed.  First Appellate Authority held that the goods were defective and were not acceptable by the purchaser and were returned, therefore, sale was not complete and provision of Section 7 (1-D) does not apply.  Tribunal has confirmed the order.  In my opinion, question raised in the present revision does not arise from the order of Tribunal.  Merely because revised return as required under Section 7 (1-D) was not filed within thirty days, claim of the goods return can not be rejected.  Section 7 (1-D) does not say that in case revised return is not filed within thirty days, claim of goods return is not accepted.  In view of the fact that the goods were defective and were not accepted by the purchaser, sale was not complete as held by First Appellate Authority which has not been disputed by the Revenue, the provision of Section 7 (1-D) appears to be not applicable.  Finding of Tribunal is the finding of fact and needs no interference.

In the result, revision is accordingly dismissed.




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.