Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

THE COMMISSIONER,TRADE TAX U.P.LUCKNOW versus GRAMODYOG MANDEL 16/239 CIVIL LINES KANPUR

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


The Commissioner,Trade Tax U.P.Lucknow v. Gramodyog Mandel 16/239 Civil Lines Kanpur - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 226 of 1996 [2004] RD-AH 583 (18 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.226 OF 1996

AND

TRADE TAX REVISION NO.227 OF 1996

The Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P., Lucknow. ....Applicant

Versus

Gramodyog Mandel, Kanpur. ....Opp.Party

...............

Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.

These two revisions under Section 11 of U.P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as "Act") are directed against the order of Tribunal dated 25.09.1995 relating to the assessment year 1983-84 and 84-85.

Following question has been raised:

"Whether the Tribunal was legally justified to dismissed the second appeal  filed by the revenue while the production and sale of bricks industries does not fall under the category of pottery Industries or cottage industries under the facts and circumstances of the case ?"

Aforesaid question is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in the case of Sivaya Gramodyog Sansthan, Meerut Vs. CST, reported in 2004 NTN (Vol.24), 360 in which brick klin has been held covered under Cottage Pottery Industry under the notification No.ST-5025/X-6(12)-79-U.P. Act-XV-48-Order-79 dated 30.06.1979 upto 30.01.1985 and after 31.01.1985 brick klin is specifically excluded from cottage pottery industry vide notification no.ST-II-7037/X-7(23)-U.P.Act-XV-48-Order-85, dated 31.01.1985. Following the aforesaid decision, it is held that brick klin falls under the category cottage pottery industry upto 30.01.1985 and after 31.01.1985 does not fall under cottage pottery industry. Perusal of the order of first appellate authority shows that the exemption was granted for the period prior to 01.02.1985 and the turn over at Rs.55,000/- has been estimated for the period of 01.02.1985 to 31.03.1985 and tax was assessed. Order of the first appellate authority has been confirmed by the Tribunal. In this way, exemption was granted upto the period 31.01.1985 and not for the subsequent period.

In the result, both the revisions are dismissed.

Dt.18.08.2004

R./


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.