Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

THE COMMISSIONER, TRADE TAX, U.P. LUCKNOW versus S/S SUN SHINE POTTERIES G.T.ROAD, KHURJA

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 Sun Shine Potteries G.T.Road, Khurja - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 779 of 1997 [2005] RD-AH 2158 (29 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).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

COURT NO.55

TRADE TAX REVISION NO.779 OF 1997

AND

TRADE TAX REVISION NO.795 OF 1997

The Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P., Lucknow. ....Applicant

Versus

S/S Sun Shine Potteries, Khurja. ....Opp.party

AND

TRADE TAX REVISION NO.798 OF 1997

The Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P., Lucknow. ....Applicant

Versus

S/S Central Potteries, Khurja. ....Opp.party

Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.

These three revisions under section 11 of U.P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as "Act") are directed against the order of Tribunal dated 14.01.1997 by which Tribunal has decided appeals filed by Commissioner of Trade Tax against the aforesaid two dealers for the assessment years 1988-89, 89-90 and 1988-89 respectively. Both the dealers claimed to have made sales against Form 3-B to M/s Jet Switch Gear, Mainpuri and claimed exemption on the basis of Form 3-B. The claim of the exemption has been disallowed on the ground that it was found that the alleged Form 3-B were issued by M/s Jet Switch Gear, Mainpuri to different parties and not to the opposite parties. However, in appeal the claim of the dealer has been accepted on the ground that the Forms were genuine and admittedly issued by the department. They were not found forged. Commissioner of Trade Tax filed appeals before the Tribunal, which were rejected by the impugned order.

Heard learned Standing Counsel and Sri R.D.Gupta, learned counsel for the dealer.

I have perused the order of Tribunal and the authorities below.

Admittedly, forms were not found forged but have been found issued by the department. If the claim of the department was that these forms have been issued by M/s Jet Switch Gear, Mainpuri to different parties, the assessing authority should make enquiry from those parties to ascertain the truth and find out that how these forms have come to the present dealer. Perusal of the assessment order shows that no such enquiry was made. It is settled principal of law that unless a form is found to be forged and obtained as a result of collusion between the parties, the claim of exemption can not be denied to the party, who furnished the form. Reliance is place on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Chunni Lal Parsadi Mal Vs. CST, reported in 1986 UPTC, 747 SC and the decision of this Court in the case of Bharat Iron Stores Vs. CST, reported in 1994 UPTC, 130, M/s Indra Steels Vs. CST, reported in 1995 UPTC, 4 and M/s Gaurav Traders, Meerut Vs. CTT, reported in 1996 NTN Vol.9), 262.

In the result, all the revisions fail and are accordingly, dismissed.

Dt.29.08.05

R./

 


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.