Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

M/S.PRAKASH ENGINEERING WORKS versus COMMISSIONER TRADE TAX U.P. LUCKNOW

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


M/S.Prakash Engineering Works v. Commissioner Trade Tax U.P. Lucknow - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 300 of 1995 [2004] RD-AH 872 (22 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.  300 of 1995.

M/S Prakash Engineering Works, Meerut. ... Revisionist.

The Commissioner of Trade Tax, U. P. Lucknow ... 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 23.3.1995 relating to assessment years 1983-84.

Applicant owned a Rolling Mill and was carrying on the business of manufacturing and sale of Sariya and agriculture implements, for which alleged to have maintained books of account in the regular course of business.  During the year under consideration, applicant had disclosed sale of agriculture implements for Rs.27,82,085.50 and claimed exemption on the said turnover.  Assessing Authority relying upon the survey reports dated 10.12.1984, 19.6.1984 and 5.8.1985 held that the applicant was not involved in the manufacturing of agriculture implements and accordingly denied the exemption on the disclosed turnover of agriculture implements.  First appeal filed by the dealer was allowed.  First appellate authority held that the dealer was involved in the manufacturing of agriculture implements.   Commissioner of Trade Tax filed appeal before the Tribunal which was allowed and the order of First Appellate Authority was set aside and the order of Assessing Authority was restored.

Heard Counsel for the parties.

Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that the Tribunal has illegally up held the order of Assessing Authority and held that the applicant had not manufactured any agriculture implements and had not made any sale of agriculture implements during the year under consideration.  He submitted that the Tribunal has relied upon the survey reports dated 19.6.1984, 10.12.84 and 5.8.1985, but these surveys are relating to the assessment years 1984-85 and 1985-86.  He submitted that these surveys are not relevant for the year under consideration, inasmuch as, for the assessment years 1984-85 and 1985-86,  Assessing Authority on a consideration of these survey reports held that the applicant had manufactured agriculture implements. He further submitted that the relevant survey for the year under consideration was dated 25.8.1983 and at the time of survey, applicant was found engaged in the business of manufacturing of agriculture implements.  He further submitted that the certificate filed by the Project Manager, Zila Udyog, Meerut dated 28.2.1987 which had been relied upon by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) also establishes that the applicant was involved in the manufacturing of agriculture implements.  Learned Standing Counsel relied upon the order of Tribunal.

I have perused the order of Tribunal and the authorities below.  Learned Standing Counsel produced the assessment record, in which, original copy of survey reports are available.  I have perused the survey reports.      

In non of surveys, it was found that the applicant was not manufacturing agriculture implements. In the confidential report of survey-dated 19.6.1985, Surveying Officer mentioned that on query being made by the labours, it was told that since last several years, agriculture implements have not been manufactured.  Further in the confidential report of survey dated 8.12.1984, Surveying Officer stated that the agriculture implements are not being manufactured.  At the time of both the surveys dated 10.12.1984 and 19.6.1985, Madan Lal partner was present.  It is very surprise that when the partner was present, why the query was made by the labour and why the query was not made from the partner, when according to surveying authority the applicant was not found involved in the manufacturing of agriculture implements. Confidential report, which was given on the back of the dealer, can not be relied upon.  This Court consistently taken this view.  In the case of Moon Glass Works Vs. CST reported in 2004 (35) STJ page 355, this court held that the confidential report mentioned in the survey report, can not be relied upon.  Moreover, these two surveys reports have been considered and discussed by the Assessing Authority in the assessment order for the year 1984-85 and 1985-86 and the Assessing Authority had accepted the declared turnover treating the same as agriculture implements and accordingly exempted such turnover.  There was only one relevant survey dated 25.8.83 for the year under consideration and at the time of this survey, books of account were found and it was also found that the applicant was manufacturing agriculture implements and nothing adverse, was found in that survey.  Therefore, order of Tribunal can not be sustained and is set aside.   Tribunal has erred in taking the view that applicant was not involved in the manufacturing of agriculture implement.

In the result, revision is allowed.  Order of Tribunal is set aside and the order of First Appellate Authority is restored.

Dt:22.9.2004.

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.