High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
The Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P. v. S/S. R.K.Goyal - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 592 of 1997  RD-AH 313 (1 February 2005)
TRADE TAX REVISION NO.592 OF 1997
The Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P., Lucknow. ....Applicant
S/S Ramesh Chand Arun Kumar, Hathras. ....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 30.11.1996 for the assessment year 1981-82.
It appears that the assessment proceedings under section 7 of the Act was initiated against the dealer/opposite party (hereinafter referred to as "Dealer") on the basis of the information received from T.P. Nagar Check Post, Ghaziabad that the dealer had obtained four Form-34 but could not surrender at the exist check post. Dealer denied to have obtained any such Form-34. Assessing authority however, not accepted the plea of the dealer and passed the assessment order. Dealer filed appeal. In first appeal, matter was remanded back to the assessing authority with the direction that Form-34 be confronted to the dealer and in case, if Form-34 was not available then Panji-3 may be confronted and the necessary enquiry be also made from the owner of the truck. Dealer appeared before the assessing authority and again submitted that the alleged truck did not belong to it and the alleged Form-34 had not been obtained. Request was made to confront Form-34 and the Panji-34 but it appears that assessing authority had passed the assessment order again without confronting the Form-34 and Panji-3 only on the basis of the information, which is alleged to have been received on the basis of entry of Panji-3. It also appears that no enquiry was made from the owner of the truck. First appeal filed by the dealer was rejected. Tribunal allowed the second appeal. Tribunal held that the dealer has filed an affidavit on 05.10.1990 in which he has denied to own any truck and also denied to have obtained any such Form-34. Tribunal further held that the Form-34 and Panji-3 register were not confronted and the enquiry from the owner of the truck has also not been made as directed by the first appellate authority while remanding back the case. In the circumstances, Tribunal held that department failed to prove that the information relates to the dealer.
Heard learned Standing Counsel.
I have perused the order of the Tribunal.
I do not find any error in the order of Tribunal. Finding recorded by 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.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.