Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

THE COMMISSIONER TRADE TAX U.P.LUCKNOW versus S/S HARE KRISHNA AGRAWAL

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


The Commissioner Trade Tax U.P.Lucknow v. S/S Hare Krishna Agrawal - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 1351 of 1995 [2004] RD-AH 827 (18 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.  1351 of 1995.

The Commissioner of Trade Tax, U. P. Lucknow.................Revisionist.

Vs.

S/S Hare Krishna Agrawal, Farrukhabad..........................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 28.8.1995 relating to assessment years 1989-90.

In the original assessment order passed under Rule 41 (7), Assessing Authority levied tax on the turnover of Aluminum Powder @ 2.2%, a proceeding under Section 22 was initiated with the view that the Aluminum Powder was wrongly assessed @ 2.2% and should be taxed as Chemical @ 8.8.%  Dealer explained that the Aluminum Powder was obtained by process of grinding of Aluminum and it was Aluminum metal and not  Chemical.  Assessing Authority however, not accepted the plea of the dealer and levied the tax @ of 8.8% treating it as a Chemical.  Dealer filed appeal before the Assistant Commissioner (J), Sales Tax, which was allowed and the order passed under Section 22 was set aside.  Commissioner of Trade Tax filed appeal before the Tribunal, which was rejected.

Heard Learned Standing Counsel, but no one appears on behalf of the dealer-opp. party.

I have perused the order of Tribunal and the authorities below.  There is no merit in the present revision.  Under Section 22, only mistake apparent on the face of record, can be rectified.  Whether the Aluminum Powder was liable to tax as a Aluminum metal or as a Chemical, was a debatable issue and requires adjudication and investigation and therefore, it was out side the purview of Section 22.  First Appellate Authority had rightly allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed under Section 22.  Tribunal has rightly confirmed the order of First Appellate Authority.  I do not find any error in the order of Tribunal.

In the result, revision fails and is dismissed.

Dt:18.9.2004.

MZ/-


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.