Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

M/S SATTAR GLASS WORKS versus THE COMMISSIONER TRADE TAX, U.P., LUCKNOW

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


M/S Sattar Glass Works v. The Commissioner Trade Tax, U.P., Lucknow - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 2206 of 2004 [2004] RD-AH 976 (30 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. 2206 of 2004.

AND

Trade Tax Revision no. 2207 of 2004.

M/S Sattar Glass Works, Firozabad. ... Revisionist.

Vs

Commissioner of Trade Tax, U. P. Lucknow.........................Respondent.

Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.

These two revisions under Section 11 of U. P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as ''Act') is directed against the orders of Tribunal dated 18.5.2004 both relating to assessment years 1993-94 and 1994-95 respectively.

Applicant was engaged in the business of manufacturing and sales of hand made  glass Phials and plain Glass Bangles.   In the assessment years 1993-94, applicant alleged to have maintained proper books of account in the regular course of business and according to which disclosed total and taxable turnover at Rs.7,86,724.50 Paise and Rs.308999.50 Paise respectively.  For the assessment year 1994-95, applicant had disclosed total sales at Rs.5,08,000/- which relates to the hand made glass phials and had not disclosed any taxable turnover.  Glass phials was exempted from the tax under the Notification no. ST-II-7038/X-dated 31.1.1985 issued in exercise of power under Section 4 (a) of the Act.  On the query being made by the Assessing Authority about the Machinery etc. used in the manufacturing of hand made glass phials, it was stated that the Factory was taken on lease and no machinery was purchased.  Assessing Authority however had not accepted the plea of the applicant and held that the applicant was not involved in the manufacturing of hand made glass works.  For various reasons, books of accounts were also rejected and the turnover was enhanced and taxable turnover was estimated at Rs.10,20,099/- for the assessment year 1993-94 and Rs.5,58,400/- for the assessment year 1994-95.  First appeals filed by the applicant were rejected.  Applicant filed Second Appeal before the Tribunal.  Tribunal vide impugned order, allowed the appeal for the assessment year 1993-94 in part and reduced the taxable turnover by Rs.2 Lacs.  Tribunal, however, rejected the appeal relating to assessment year 1994-95.

Heard Counsel for the parties.

Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that the view of Tribunal that the applicant had not manufactured hand made glass phials is based on no material and merely on the surmises and conjectures.  He submitted that the Factory was taken on lease fitted with all the Machine and molded, tools etc., in which hand made glass phials were manufactured.  A typed copy of lease deed dated 9.1.1991 is annexed as Annexure-5 to the revision.  Learned Counsel for the applicant very fairly stated that the copy of lease deed was not filed before the authorities below, but the lease deed is a registered lease deed which was registered on 9.1.1991, copy of registered lease deed has been produced before this Court for verification. He further submitted that no defects were found in the books of account, inasmuch as, no case of suppression of turnover had been made out thus, books of account should be accepted.

Having heard learned Counsel for the parties.  I have perused the order of Tribunal and the authorities below.  The main dispute relates to the rejection of claim of applicant about the manufacturing and sales of hand made glass phials. According to the applicant, Factory fitted with the Machine etc. was taken on lease, in which, hand made glass phials were manufactured.  No lease deed was produced before the authorities below, but  applicant all along contended that the Factory was taken on lease fitted with machines etc. and it appears that there was no material with the department to dispute the claim of the applicant.   Lease deed produced before the Court is a registered lease deed which was registered on 9.1.1991. In my view, since the lease deed was registered in 1991 itself, it would be in the interest of justice that the Tribunal may consider the registered lease deed which appears to be relevant document in arriving to a conclusion whether the applicant was involved in the manufacturing of hand made glass works.

In the result, revision is allowed.  Order of Tribunal is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal to decide the appeal afresh in accordance to law in the light of observations made above. It will be open to the applicant to make any other submissions or submit documents in support of the case which the Tribunal may consider and adjudicate.

Dt:30.9.2004.

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.