Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

COMMISSIONER,TRADE TAX U.P.LKO. versus KAPIL STEEL CO.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Commissioner,Trade Tax U.P.Lko. v. Kapil Steel Co. - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 1165 of 1997 [2005] RD-AH 2699 (12 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.1165 of 1997.

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

Versus

M/S Kapil Steel Company, Kanpur.  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 23rd May, 1997 relating to the assessment year 1984-85.

The only dispute relates to the rate of interest, under section 8 (1) of the Act. It appears that the dealer opposite party (hereinafter referred to as "the dealer") has made inter-State sales and claimed that such goods have been purchased from outside the State of U.P. and in view of the Notification No. ST-3618/900 (21)-69 dated 1.7.1969, it was liable to tax at the rate of one percent. The assessing authority has held that in fact the dealer had made purchases not in the course of inter-State Sales but purchases at Jamshedpur and the tax under the Bihar Sales Tax Act has been paid and not under the Central Sales Tax Act, and therefore, the claim of tax at the rate of one percent under the aforesaid notification has been denied. The Tribunal has upheld the view of the assessing authority. The Tribunal however, deleted the demand of interest under section 8 (1) of the Act on the ground that at no stage, the dealer has admitted the liability of tax at the rate of four percent and merely claim of dealer has been rejected, tax assessed cannot be treated as admitted tax. I do not find any error in the order of the Tribunal.

In the result, revision fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.

Dated.12.09.2005.

VS.


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.