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. v. S/S Umesh Chandra Agrawal,Arathi, Bulandshahr. - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION DEFECTIVE No. 1782 of 1997 [2005] RD-AH 2591 (8 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.(1782) of 1998

The Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P.           Applicant


S/S Umesh Chandra Agrawal,Arathi, Bulandshahr.                    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 31st July, 1998 by which the Tribunal has deleted the penalty levied under section 13-A (4) of the Act.

On 12th March, 1996, 60 bills of bardana which was sent to M/S Sunder Singh Gurjeet Singh, G-147 Naveen Mandi, Muzaffarnagar was intercepted . Along with the goods one letter and letter pad was found in which the details of the goods, name of the parties were mentioned and it was stated that the goods was being sent for sale. The goods were seized on the ground that there was no proper bill or challan along with the goods and was subsequently released on furnishing of security. In pursuance of the seizure of the goods, penalty under section 13-A (4) of the Act has been levied at Rs.28, 200/-. First appeal filed by the dealer was rejected. Dealer filed second appeal before the Tribunal that has been allowed by the impugned order. The Tribunal held that the goods were sent for sale on consignment basis and along with the goods letter and letter pad was available in which the name of the parties and the detail of the goods were mentioned. The Tribunal further found that the goods relate to the U.P. purchased goods and the entry was available in the books of account. I do not find any error in the order of the Tribunal. Finding of the Tribunal is 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.