Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

MOHAN PRAKASHAN versus TRADE TAX COMMISSIONER

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Mohan Prakashan v. Trade Tax Commissioner - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 1443 of 2004 [2004] RD-AH 463 (5 August 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. 1443 of 2004.

Mohan Prakash Ghantaghar Chowk, Aligarh.....................  Revisionist.

Vs

Trade Tax  Commissioner, U. P   . Lucknow.........................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 25.5.2004 relating to the assessment years 1993-94 under the Central Sales Tax Act.

It appears that for the assessment year 1993-94, both under the Trade Tax Act and as well as under the Central Sales Tax Act, Assessing Authority has passed two ex-parte orders.  For recalling of ex-parte orders, applicant moved application under Section 30 of the Act on the ground that on the date fixed, he was prevented by sufficient cause.  It has also been claimed that the admitted tax has already been deposited.  Assessing Authority vide order dated 25.7.2001, allowed the application under Section 30 and set aside the ex-parte orders passed under the U.P. Trade Tax Act and rejected the application under Section 30 of the Central Sales Tax Act on the ground that the admitted tax of 52/- was deposited less.  Assessing Authority, however, accepted that the application was filed within time and proper reason for non-appearance was given.  Applicant moved an application under Section 22 of the Act stating therein that the total admitted tax under the Central Sales Tax Act was Rs.5980/- and the benefit of deposit of Rs.5929/- has already been given by the Assessing Authority.  He further submitted that against the interest due at Rs.574.18 Paise, dealer had deposited a sum of Rs.975/- i. e. Rs.400/- in excess.  He submitted that inadvertently, instead of depositing tax, a sum of Rs.400/- was deposited in excess in the head of interest.  It is, requested that if the excess amount is taken into consideration, there was no less deposit of admitted tax.  Assessing Authority vide order dated 7.2.2001 has rejected the application under Section 22 of the Act.  Assessing Authority has not disputed that a sum of Rs.400/- was deposited in excess, but he has not allowed the claim of adjustment because the amount was deposited towards the interest.  First appeal filed by the applicant was rejected.  Second Appeal filed by the dealer was also rejected by the Tribunal.  Being aggrieved by the order, present revision has been filed.

Heard Counsel for the parties.

Tribunal and the Authorities below have not disputed that the applicant had deposited a sum of Rs.400/- in excess as a interest for the year under consideration.  Section 29 (1) of the Act says that the Assessing Authority shall in manner prescribed; refund to the dealer any amount of tax, fee or other dues paid in excess of the amount from him under this Act.  Proviso (1) to Section 29says that the amount found to be refundable shall first be adjusted towards the tax or any other amount outstanding against the dealer under this Act or under the Central Sales Tax Act and only balance if any, shall be refunded.  The word other dues mentioned in Section 29 (1) of the Act includes interest, therefore, if any amount has been deposited in excess as interest, the said excess amount can be adjusted with the amount of tax.  In the present case, there is no dispute that a sum of Rs.400/- was deposited in excess under the head interest. Assessing Authority should have adjusted a sum of Rs.400/- towards the tax found to have been deposited less under the Central Sales Tax Act.  If a sum of Rs.400/- is adjusted, there would be no less deposit of admitted tax.  

In the circumstances, revision is allowed.  Order dated 25.5.2004 passed by the Tribunal and order under Section 30 under the Central Sales Tax Act are set aside.  Assessing Authority is directed to adjust a sum of Rs.400/- deposited in excess as interest with the amount of tax for the assessment year 1993-94 under the Central Sales Tax Act and may pass appropriate orders on the application under Section 30 of the Act.

Dt:05.8.2004.

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.