Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

JEEWAN RAM RAM LAKHAN versus COMMISSIONER OF TRADE TAX, U.P. LUCKNOW

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Jeewan Ram Ram Lakhan v. Commissioner Of Trade Tax, U.P. Lucknow - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 1184 of 2005 [2005] RD-AH 2231 (1 September 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. 1184 of 2005.

Jeewan RamRam Lkhan, Kanpur. ... Applicant.

Vs

Commissioner of Trade Tax, U. P. Lucknow. ...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 23.06.2005 relating to assessment year 1977-78 under the U. P. Trade Tax Act.

Heard Sri S.D. Singh, learned Counsel for the applicant and Sri K. M. Sahai, learned Standing Counsel.

With the consent of both the parties, the present revision is being disposed of at the admission stage.

Applicant was carrying on the business of Iron and Steel and during the course of assessment proceedings applicant filed 30 Forms 3-A alleged to have been obtained from M/S Awasthi Iron Stores, Hardoi, M/S Indian Steel Taders, Hardoi and Manohar Brothers, Gorakhpur Road, Deoria  claimed to be registered dealer for  claim of exemption on the turnover made to the aforesaid three parties.  It appears that the Assessing Authority received information that these aforesaid three Firms were not registered and were not in existence.  On the information being confronted, applicant filed copy of registration certificate of the aforesaid three parties before the Assessing Authority, which had been held as useless in view of information received and accordingly claim of exemption against the said Forms 3-A was rejected.  First appeal filed by the applicant was rejected.  Applicant filed Second Appeal before the Tribunal, which has also been rejected by the impugned order.  

Learned Counsel for the applicant contended that the claim of Revenue that the aforesaid three parties to whom sales were made and from whom Forms 3-A were received, were not registered dealers and were not in existence, is absolutely incorrect.  He submitted that before the Assessing Authority, Registration Certificates of the aforesaid three parties were submitted which had not been accepted without making any enquiry about the said Registration Certificates.  He submitted that the applicant acted as a bonafide dealer and received Forms 3-A from the aforesaid three parties.  The alleged Forms were issued by the Department and no basis has been given treating the said Forms 3-A as forged and non genuine.  Learned Standing Counsel relied upon the order of Tribunal.

I have perused the order of Tribunal and the authorities below.  In my opinion, order of Tribunal and the authorities below are not sustainable.  Perusal of assessment order shows that the applicant filed copies of Registration Certificates of M/S Awasthi Iron Stores, Hardoi, M/S Indian Steel Traders, Hardoi and Manohar Brothers, Gorakhpur Road, Deoria to establish that the aforesaid three parties were the registered dealer.  No enquiry whatsoever had been made by the Assessing Authority to verify the Registration Certificate of the aforesaid three parties.  It is wholly improper on the part of the Assessing Authority to ignore the Registration Certificates without making any enquiry with regard to the said Registration Certificates merely because information received earlier shows that the said parties were not registered and were not in existence.  It also appears that no basis has been given for coming to the conclusion that the alleged Forms 3-A were forged and non genuine.  It has to be enquired as to whether these Forms have been issued by the Department or not and if these Forms have been issued by the Department how it had become forged.  It is settled principle of law that if the dealer had made sales to the parties and received Forms 3-A bonafidely, the Forms were issued by the Department and were not forged and had not been obtained as a result of collusion, exemption against the said Forms in the hands of the dealer, cannot be denied.  This aspect of the matter requires afresh examination, which is possible only by the Assessing Authority.  In the circumstances, matter is remanded back to the Assessing Authority to pass afresh assessment order in the light of observations made above.

In the result, revision is allowed.  Order of Tribunal dated 23.6.2005 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Assessing Authority to pass assessment order afresh in the light of observations made above.

Dt:01.09.2005.

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.