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


The Commissioner, Trade Tax U.P. v. S/S India Metal Stores Sarai, Miya, - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 1577 of 1994 [2004] RD-AH 764 (13 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).


Court no. 55

Trade Tax Revision no.  1577 of 1994.

The Commissioner of Trade Tax       ...............................Revisionist.


S/S India Metal Stores, Aligarh. ................................  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 18.7.1994 relating to the assessment years 1986-87.

On the turnover of Aluminum Section, tax was assessed by the Assessing Authority at the rate of 8.8% treating it as an unclassified item.  Applicant claim was that Aluminum Section was liable to tax @ 2.2% under the entry of "All kinds of Ores, Metals, Scraps and alloys including Sheets and Circles in the manufacture of Brasswares except those included in any other  entry or any other notification issued under the Act of Notification no.6075 dated 1st October, 1983.

Dealer filed First Appeal before the Asstt. Commissioner (J), Sales Tax which was allowed and tax on the turnover of Aluminum Section was assessed @ 2.2%.  Commissioner of Sales Tax filed application under Section 22 before the Asstt,. Commissioner (J), Sales Tax which was allowed appellate order was rectified to the extent that the dealer appeal was rejected and tax levied @ 8.8% on the turnover of Aluminum Section was up held.  Against the said order, dealer filed appeal before the Tribunal, which was rejected, vide order dated 6.7.1992.  Against the said order, revision no. 1686 of 1992 was filed in; this Court.  This Court vide order dated 16.10.1992 allowed the revision and set aside the order dated 6.7.1992.  It was directed that the Aluminum Section was liable to tax @ 2%.  In pursuance of order passed by this Court, Tribunal passed the impugned order and allowed the appeal of dealer and held that Aluminum Section was liable to tax @ 2.2%.

Heard learned Standing Counsel.  No one appears on behalf of the dealer inspite of service of notice. Learned Standing Counsel submitted that in the case of dealer, this Court followed its earlier decision in the case of CST Vs. Devi Dayal Aluminum Pvt. Ltd. reported in 1992 UPTC page 115 which was subsequently reversed by the Apex Court in  S. L.P. no. 3188 of 1995 decided on 24.8.1997 and therefore, order passed by the Tribunal is erroneous.  I afraid to accept the submissions of learned Standing Counsel. Tribunal has passed impugned order only in pursuance of the order dated 16.10.1992 passed by this Court in Sales Tax Revision no.1686 of 1992 in the case of dealer itself for the same assessment years.  The decision of this Court dated 16.10.1992 has become final between the parties and therefore, I do not find any error in the order of Tribunal.

In the result, revision fails and is accordingly 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.