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


The Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P. Lucknow v. S/S Kedar Nath & Co. - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION DEFECTIVE No. 1337 of 1998 [2005] RD-AH 2322 (2 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).


Court no.55

TRADE TAX REVISION NO.(1337) of 1998

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


S/S Kedar Nath & Co, Kheragarh, Agra.  Opp.Party.

Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.

Present revision under Section 11 of U.P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") is directed against the order of Tribunal dated 24th March, 1998 relating to the assessment year 1986-87.

During the year under consideration, the dealer opposite party (hereinafter referred to as "the dealer") claimed to have sold oilseeds for Rs.5,49,499.50 paise in the course of inter-State sales on behalf of the farmers in respect of which  Form -C were also furnished and liability of tax under the Central Sales Tax Act has been admitted. Apart from the aforesaid transaction, the dealer has also despatched the goods outside the State of U.P. for sale on commission agency for Rs.13,48,697.13 paise on behalf of the farmers and in respect of which Form F has been filed. The assessing authority levied the tax in respect of the aforesaid transaction treating the dealer as first purchaser of the goods under the U.P. Trade Tax Act. First appeal filed by the dealer has been allowed. Commissioner of Trade Tax filed appeal before the Tribunal, which has been rejected.

Heard learned Standing Counsel and Sri R. R. Agarwal, learned counsel for the dealer opposite party.

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

The Tribunal held that the dealer has sold the goods in the course of inter-State sale on behalf of the farmers and also despatched the goods for sale on commission agency on behalf of the farmers, therefore, the purchases of the alleged goods cannot be treated on own account and accordingly, deleted the tax on the purchases under the U.P. Trade Tax Act. Learned Standing Counsel is not able to show that the finding recorded by the Tribunal is incorrect or the view taken by the Tribunal is not justified. If the goods have been despatched outside the State of U.P. either in the course of inter-State sale or for sale on commission agency on behalf of the farmers, in the absence of any contrary material, it cannot be treated as purchase on own account. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal view cannot be said to be arbitrary and without any basis.

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.