Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

M/S MAJHOLA DISTILLERY AND CHEMICAL WORKS versus THE SALES TAX COMMISIONER, U.P.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


M/S Majhola Distillery And Chemical Works v. The Sales Tax Commisioner, U.P. - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 247 of 1993 [2004] RD-AH 716 (2 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

SALES TAX REVISION NO.247 OF 1993

M/s Majhola Distillery & Chemical Works, Pilibhit. ...Applicant

Versus

The Commissioner, Sales Tax, U.P., 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 07.11.1992 relating to the assessment year 1983-84.

On the basis of the information that the applicant had purchased rice husk from M/s Sunil Kumar, 53, Sahukara, Pilibhit for Rs.2,41,919,388p., proceeding under section 21 of the Act was initiated. The aforesaid information was confronted to the applicant, which had not been disputed and accordingly, assessing authority levied tax on the purchases of rice husk vide order dated 22.09.1998. First appeal filed by the applicant was rejected. Applicant filed second appeal before the Tribunal, which has also been rejected. Against the impugned order, applicant has filed the present revision.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Rice husk is liable to tax at the point of first purchase under section 3-D (1) and, therefore, the purchase made by the applicant was liable to tax at the point of purchase. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that against the original assessment order, appeal was allowed by Assistant Commissioner (Judicial), Sales Tax, Bareilly vide order dated 20.09.1988 and, therefore, order passed under section 21 of the Act on 22.09.1988 was not valid, when the proceeding under section 7 in pursuance of the order of the first appellate authority was pending. In the revision petition, question raised is that the Tribunal has not decided the question of initiation of the validity of the proceeding under section 21 of the Act. Learned Standing Counsel submitted that the submission, which has been raised today, have not been raised before the first appellate authority and before the Tribunal. He submitted that the ground of appeal before the Tribunal is annexed as annexure-4 to the revision, in which no such ground has been taken and, therefore, Tribunal had no occasion to decide the said question and the question raised for the first time should not be entertained.

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

I do not find any force in the argument of the learned counsel for the applicant. Question of validity of initiation of the proceeding under section 21 has not been challenged before any of the authorities below.  Submission, which has been raised today, have not been raised before any of the authority. Ground of appeal, filed before the Tribunal, which is annexure-4 to the revision petition  shows that no such ground has been taken before the Tribunal and, therefore, Tribunal had no occasion to adjudicate the issue raised here. Issue has not been raised before any of the authority at any stage. Therefore, it can not be permitted to be raised for the first time in the present revision. In the circumstances, I do not find any force in the argument of learned counsel the applicant. No other point has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.

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

Dt.02.09.2004

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.