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 Adarsh Sugar Works v. Commissioner Of Trade Tax U.P. Lko. - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 1627 of 1994 [2004] RD-AH 476 (6 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).


Court no. 55

Sales Tax Revision no. 1627 of 1994.

M/S Adarsh Sugar Works Village, Moradabad............. .......Revisionist.                    


Commissioner of Trade Tax 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 20.8.1994 relating to the assessment years 1982-83.

On the basis of certain information received from Mandi Samiti, a proceeding under Section 21 was initiated.  It appears that an ex-parte order was passed which was subsequently recalled under Section 30 of the Act and again an ex-parte order under Section 21 was passed.  The turnover was estimated on the basis of information received from Mandi Samiti relating to the interstate sales.  Assessing Authority estimated the turnover at Rs.3 Lacs.  First appeal filed by the applicant was allowed in part and turnover was reduced to Rs.2,50,000/-.  Applicant filed Second Appeal before the Tribunal, which was allowed in part, and turnover was estimated at Rs.2 Lacs.  Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that the Tribunal erred in not taking into account the reply dated 21.8.1988 filed before the Assessing Authority, in which, applicant had requested for confrontation of record of Mandi Samiti.  

I have perused the order of Tribunal and the authorities below.  Tribunal on verification, allowed the benefit of one of the information which was found entered into the books of account and estimated the turnover at Rs.2 Lacs on the basis of information, which could not be verified.  It is doubtful whether any  reply was filed on 21.8.1988. If any reply would have been filed, applicant on the first opportunity should have to place that reply before the Asstt. Commissioner (Judl.) Sales Tax, Moradabad.  Perusal of order shows that such reply was not placed before the First Appellate Authority and no argument relating to such reply was made.  In the circumstances, it is doubtful that such reply was filed and the Tribunal has rightly not considered the said reply.  I do not find any error in the order of Tribunal.

In 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.