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


M/S Jai Hanuman Oil Traders v. The Commissioner Trade Tax, U.P. Lucknow - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION DEFECTIVE No. 168 of 2005 [2005] RD-AH 2403 (6 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).




M/s Jai Hanuman Oil Traders. ....Applicant


The Commissioner of Trade Tax, U.P.,

Lucknow. ....Opp.party


Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.

Present revision under Section 11 of U.P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as "Act") is directed against the order of Tribunal dated 18.05.2005 relating to the assessment year 2001-02.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Learned Standing Counsel has produced the assessment record of the case. Perusal of the assessment record shows that the applicant had started its business of used mobil oil, iron and other kabari goods w.e.f. 15.12.2001 and after necessary enquiries registration under the U.P. Trade Tax Act was granted under section 8-A of the Act W.e.f. 01.02.2002, the place of the business has been changed and from front portion of the house it was shifted to the back side of the house and in respect of which information was given on 28.02.2002. The Trade Tax Officer has cancelled the registration vide order dated 07.06.2002 on the ground that at the time of surveys dated 07.05.2005 and 23.05.2002 the business premises was found closed and on enquiry it was found that no business was being carried on from the premises. First appeal filed by the applicant against the order canceling the registration has been rejected. Tribunal has also rejected the second appeal.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that cancellation of registration for the assessment year 2001-02 on the basis of surveys dated 07.05.2002 and 23.05.2002 is unjustified. He submitted that nature of the business of the applicant was such that it was not required to open the shop every day. His business was being mainly carried on from the place of factories from where the applicant was mainly purchasing and selling the oil. He further submitted that for the assessment year 2001-02 applicant had disclosed the purchase and sales to the extent of Rs.3,42,601.37p. and Rs.1,76,363/- respectively and same has been assessed by the Additional Trade Tax Officer Sector-4, Allahabad vide order dated 15.03.2004. Copy of the assessment order is at page 53 of the revision petition. He further submitted that for the assessment year 2002-03 also applicant had made the sales at Rs.5,88,185/- and same has been assessed vide order dated 28.02.2005 passed by Trade Tax Officer, Sector-3, Allahabad. Copy of the assessment order is at page 56 of the revision petition. On these facts, he submitted that cancellation of registration on the ground that the business was not being carried on, is wholly unjustified.

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

In my view, order of the Tribunal is not sustainable. Perusal of the surveys reported dated 07.05.2002 and 23.05.2002 shows that no responsible person was present, in-as-much as the averment made in the surveys have not been corroborated by any person. It had not been signed by any person. Thus much reliance can not be placed on the said surveys. Perusal of the assessment orders for the assessment year 2001-02 and 2002-03 shows that the applicant had carried on business during these years and have been subjected to assessment in respect of the business of purchases and sales and, therefore, the cancellation of registration on the ground that business had not carried on is wholly unjustified.

In the result, revision is allowed. Order of the Tribunal and the order cancelling the registration dated 07.06.2002 passed by the Trade Tax Officer, Sector-3, Allahabad are set aside.




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.