Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

THE COMMISSIONER, TRADE TAX, LUCKNOW versus S/S MADAN LAL SHARMA KACHCHA ARHTI NEW MANDI, ALIGARH

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


The Commissioner, Trade Tax, Lucknow v. S/S Madan Lal Sharma Kachcha Arhti New Mandi, Aligarh - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 1335 of 1995 [2004] RD-AH 889 (23 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.   1335 of 1995.

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

Vs.

S/S Madan Lal Sharma, Hathras ... 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 29.7.1995 relating to assessment years 1985-86.  The following question has been raised in the present revision:-

"Whether on the facts and under the circumstances of the case, learned Trade Tax Tribunal was justified to have allowed exemption under Section 3-D without the prescribed declaration which have been pronounced mandatory by Hon'ble Supreme Court?

Admittedly in respect of transaction of Rs.40,826.39 Paise of food grains, Rs.8,391.37 Paise of Oil seed and Rs.27,710.64 Paise of Matar, dealer could not file requisite Forms for the claim of exemption. Due to non furnishing of requisite Forms, Assessing Authority levied tax under Section 3-D (2) of the Act.  Order passed by the Assessing Authority was confirmed by the First Appellate Authority.  Tribunal however, allowed the appeal and deleted the tax levied on the aforesaid transactions on the ground that both the parties to whom goods were sold, were registered and tax have been levied on those parties.

Heard Counsel for the parties.

Learned Standing Counsel submitted that the submission of requisite Forms was mandatory and in the absence of requisite Forms, exemption could not be allowed.  Learned Counsel for the applicant stated that since the Tribunal has recorded the finding that the tax was levied on the purchasing party, therefore, exemption has been rightly allowed by the Tribunal on the aforesaid transactions.   In my opinion, order of Tribunal is not sustainable.  For the claim of exemption under Section 3-D (2), requisite Forms was required to be filed as contemplated under Section 3-D (7) read with Rule 12-B.  Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CST Vs. Prabhu Dayal Prem Narain reported in ATJ 1989 (1) page 50 held that filing of Forms for the claim of exemption is mandatory.  In the case of CST Vs. Dhanraj Dal Mill, Aligarh reported in 2004 NTN Vol. 24, page 65, following the decision of Apex Court, this Court has held that in the absence of requisite Forms, claim  of   exemption   can  not  be  allowed.   Following  the    aforesaid

decisions, it is held that in the absence of requisite Forms, claim of exemption has been wrongly allowed by the Tribunal.

In the result, revision is allowed.  Order of Tribunal  dated 29.7.1995 is set aside.

Dt:23.9.2004.

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.