Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

M/S PRADEEP COTTON WASTE INDUSTRIES versus COMMISSIONER OF TRADE TAX LUCKNOW

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


M/S Pradeep Cotton Waste Industries v. Commissioner Of Trade Tax Lucknow - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 424 of 1995 [2004] RD-AH 704 (1 September 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.424 OF 1995

M/s Pradeep Cotton Waste Industries ....Applicant

Versus

Commissioner of Trade Tax, Lucknow. ....Opp.party

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

Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.

Present revision under Section 11 of U.P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as "Act") is directed against the order of Tribunal dated 26.05.1995 relating to the assessment year 1985-86 under the U.P. Trade Tax Act.

Applicant was engaged in the business of purchase and sales of old jute and hemp bags etc. and disclosed taxable turn over at Rs.1,46,135.55p.. Assessing authority rejected the books of account and estimated the taxable turn over at Rs.11,60,000/-. First appellate authority had allowed the appeal in part and reduced the taxable turn over to Rs.8,40,000/-. Against the order of first appellate authority, applicant as well as Commissioner of Trade Tax filed appeals before the Tribunal. Tribunal vide impugned order rejected both the appeals.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

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

Applicant was found indulging in the suppression of the turn over, which was estimated at Rs.3,200/- per day and accordingly, turn over was enhanced. The discrepancies, which were pointed out were that on 04.07.1985 while transporting the goods at the check post, it was found that the goods were accompanied with challan no.1991, dated 02.07.1985 and again at the check post another challan no.1938, dated 03.07.1985 were found. No reasonable explanation was given for such discrepancies. Further the applicant  had produced the bill book, maintained after 17.02.1986. Bill book for the period prior to 17.02.1986 was not produced. Challan book was also not produced. Challan in loose forms in different colours were produced, which according to the authorities below were duplicate challans. In view of the aforesaid, I do not find any error in the order of Tribunal.

In the result, revision fails and is accordingly, dismissed.

Dt.01.10.2004

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.