Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

THE COMMISSIOPNER TRADE TAX U.P. LUCKNOW versus SHYAM JIKATTHA MERCHAT AURANGABAD VNS.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


The Commissiopner Trade Tax U.P. Lucknow v. Shyam Jikattha Merchat Aurangabad Vns. - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 901 of 1995 [2004] RD-AH 782 (14 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.901 OF 1995

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

Versus

S/S Shyam Ji Kattha Merchant, Varanasi. ....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 10.07.1995 relating to the assessment year 1982-83.

In the original assessment proceeding palm nut powder was treated as supari and tax @ 6% was levied. Subsequently, proceeding under section 22 of the Act was initiated on the ground that palm nut powder should be taxed as an unclassified item @ 8% and not as supari @ 6% and accordingly, tax @ 8% was levied under section 22 of the Act. First appeal filed by the dealer/opposite party (hereinafter referred to as "Dealer") was allowed and the order passed under section 22 of the Act was set aside. Dealer filed second appeal before the Tribunal, which was also rejected.

Heard learned Standing Counsel and perused the order of Tribunal and the authorities below.

Perusal of the order passed under section 22 of the Act shows that except change of opinion, no material has been brought to show that palm nut powder was not a supari. Dealer had referred the appellate order in the case of M/s Banshi Bhandar, Pandariba, Varanasi, in which palm nut powder was held as supari to the contrary assessing authority had not placed any judgment, in which any contrary view was taken. Under section 22 of the Act, only those mistakes can be rectified, which are apparent on the fact of the record. Order can not be rectified only on account of the change of opinion whether palm nut powder was taxable as supari or not as an unclassified item was a debatable question. In the circumstances, I do not find any error in the order of Tribunal.

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

Dt.14.09.2004

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.