Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

THE COMMISSIONER, TRADE TAX, U.P. LKW. versus S/S SADAFA ENTERPRISES

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


The Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P. Lkw. v. S/S Sadafa Enterprises - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 761 of 2004 [2005] RD-AH 3115 (19 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.761 of 2004.

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

Versus

S/S Sadafa Enterprises, Chamanganj, 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 17th November, 2003 relating to the assessment year 1991-92 by which the Tribunal has confirmed  the order of the first appellate authority and deleted the penalty levied under section 15-A (1) (o) of the Act.

The goods was seized at the check post on the ground that along with the goods, Form 31 was of M/S Sadafa Enterprises, Chamanganj, Kanpur while in the bill the name of the purchaser was mentioned as Sadafa Leather Complex Pvt. Ltd. The goods were subsequently released on furnishing of security. In pursuance of the seizure order, the penalty proceeding under section 15-A(1) (o) of the Act was initiated. The opposite party explained before the assessing authority that the Firm M/S Sadafa Leather Complex Pvt. Ltd was closed and inadvertently in the bill, name of M/S Sadafa Leather Complex Pvt Ltd. has been wrongly mentioned in place of M/S Sadafa Enterprises, Chamanganj, Kanpur who was the actual purchaser and the importer of the goods carrying on the business of manufacture and sale of footwear and goods sought to be imported was adhesive required as raw material in the manufacturing of footwear and there was no intent to evade the tax. The assessing authority has not accepted the explanation of the opposite party and levied the penalty under section 15-A (1) (o) of the Act. The opposite party filed appeal before the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) who has accepted the plea of the opposite party and quashed the penalty. The appellate authority on the fact has held that there was no attempt to evade the tax and the Tribunal has upheld the order of the first appellate authority.

Heard counsel for the parties.

I do not find any error in the order of the Tribunal. The finding of the Tribunal is finding of fact, which is based on the material on record.

In the result, revision fails and is accordingly dismissed.

Dated.19.09.2005.

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.