Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

THE COMMISSIONER, TRADE TAX, U.P. versus S/S. R.K.GOYAL

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


The Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P. v. S/S. R.K.Goyal - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 592 of 1997 [2005] RD-AH 313 (1 February 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.592 OF 1997

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

Versus

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.

Dt.01.02.2005

R./


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.