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


M/S Raghunath Dal Mills v. Commissioner of Trade Tax, U.P., Lucknow. - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 1533 of 1994 [2004] RD-AH 404 (30 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).




M/S Raghunath Dal Mills ....Applicant


Commissioner of Trade Tax, U.P., Lucknow. ....Opp.Party


Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.

This revision under Section 11 of U.P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as "Act") is directed against the order of Tribunal dated 17.09.1994 relating to the assessment year 1981-82.

Applicant was carrying on the business of food grains etc. It appears that during the year under consideration applicant had made the purchases of matar from M/s Shiv Charan Lal Suraj Prasad, Kasganj. M/s Shiv Charan Lal Suraj Prasad, Kasganj issued one Form 3-C (2) no.30706 apart from other forms, which according to the applicant was for Rs.74,354.72p. Applicant claimed exemption in the original assessment proceeding on the amount of Rs.74,354.72p. against said Form-3 C(2). In the original assessment proceeding claim of the applicant was accepted and the turn over was exempted from tax. Subsequently, on the basis of the information received that M/s Shiv Charan Lal Suraj Prasad, Kasganj had issued Form 3-C (2) no.30706 only for Rs.4354.72p. and not for Rs.74,354.72p. Proceeding under section 21 of the Act was initiated and after the reply from the  applicant, assessing authority levied tax on the amount of Rs.70,000/-. First appeal filed by the applicant was rejected and the second appeal has also been rejected by the Tribunal by the impugned order. Being aggrieved by the order of Tribunal, present revision has been filed.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that Tribunal has erred in not giving the benefit of exemption on the turn over of Rs.70,000/-, which was covered by Form 3-C (2) no.30706. He submitted  that merely because there was cutting in Form and such cutting was not verified or signed by the partner/proprietor of the firm, M/s Shiv Charan Lal Suraj Prasad, Kasganj, the exemption can not be disallowed.

I have perused the order of Tribunal and the authorities below.

Admittedly, in Form 3-C (2) no.30706 sum of Rs.70,000/- was added by cutting. Assessment record of M/s Shiv Charan Lal Suraj Prasad, Kasganj disclosed that the said form was issued for Rs.4,354.72p. In the affidavit filed by Kailash Nath Agarwal, Proprietor M/s Shiv Charan Lal Suraj Prasad, Kasganj it has been categorically stated that Form 3-C (2) no.30706 was issued only for Rs.4,354.72p. In the affidavit, nowhere it has been admitted that the said form was issued for Rs.74,354.72p.. Tribunal has recorded a categorical finding that applicant had manipulated the figures in the alleged form and increased the value of the form from Rs.4,354.72p. to Rs.74,354.72p. In view of the fact that purchase of Rs.70,000/- was not covered against Form 3-C (2) and there was escaped assessment, tax has been rightly imposed on the said turn over. I do not find any infirmity in the order of Tribunal.

In the result, revision fails and is 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.