Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


C.T.T. v. Bihar Tubes Ltd. - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 341 of 2004 [2005] RD-AH 2003 (22 August 2005)


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).


Court no. 55

Sales Tax Revision no.  341 Of 2004.

Commissioner of Income Tax, U. P. Lucknow. ... Applicant.


S/S Bihar Tubes Limited, Sikohabad. ... Opp. Party.

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 03.09.2003 relating to assessment year 1985-86 under the U. P. Trade Tax Act, by which, the Tribunal has rejected the appeal filed by the Commissioner of Trade Tax..  Appeal filed by the dealer was allowed quashing the penalty under Section 13-A (4).

Dealer/Opp. Party (hereinafter referred to as ''Dealer') was found exporting Steel Pipes against the Invoice no.771 dated 4.9.1995 to Bihar in Vehicle no.DL-1G/2269.  On 05.10.1995 Vehicle was intercepted by the Check Post Officer and goods was seized on the ground that in the Invoice, road permit no. 2186 was mentioned while road permit no.633968 was found and bill was dated 4.9.1995, while the goods was being transported on 05.10.1995 and the size of M.S. Pipe was declared at 45 MM while 43 MM size was found.  Marka on the Pipe was also found different.  On the aforesaid grounds, goods were seized which were subsequently released on furnishing of security.  In pursuance of the seizure order, penalty proceedings under Section 13-A (4) of the Act was initiated.  Dealer filed reply and explained the alleged discrepancy.    Assessing Authority has not accepted the explanation of the dealer and levied penalty at Rs.20,000/-.  First Appeal filed by the dealer was allowed and the penalty was deleted.  Commissioner of Trade Tax filed appeal before the Tribunal which has been dismissed by the impugned order.

Heard Counsel for the parties.

I do not find any error in the order of Tribunal and the First Appellate Authority.  Assessee had explained that since road permit no.2186had become invalid, therefore, the another road permit no. 533968 was sought by the party and due to this reason, though, the bill was raised on 5.9.1995 and the goods was also sent to the transporter on the same day but the same had been transported on 5.10.1995.  Explanation with regard to the alleged discrepancy in the size and Marka were also given which have been accepted by the First Appellate Authority and by the Tribunal.  Finding of Tribunal is the finding of fact.  No question of law is involved in the present revision.

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




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


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 |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.