Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

COMMISSIONER OF TRADE TAX U.P. LKO. versus S/S PHOOL CHANDRA SURENDRA KUMAR

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Commissioner Of Trade Tax U.P. Lko. v. S/S Phool Chandra Surendra Kumar - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION DEFECTIVE No. 1458 of 1998 [2005] RD-AH 3483 (24 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.(1458) of 1998.

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

Versus

S/S Phoolchandra Surendra Kumar, Mauth. .  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 the Tribunal dated 20th May, 1998 relating to the assessment year 1990-91.

The dealer opposite party (hereinafter referred to as "the dealer") was carrying on the business of food grain, oil seed etc. and made purchases of oil seed and food grain from M/S Shakti Trading Company for Rs.20,65, 320/-. In respect of the aforesaid purchases, the dealer had received Forms 3-C (5) nos.951010, 951011 520389 and 520373. During the course of the assessment proceeding, the dealer had filed the aforesaid Forms 3-C (5) and claimed exemption on the purchases. The exemption has been refused by the assessing authority on the ground that the registration of the firm M/S M/S Shakti Trading Company has been cancelled and the purchases made by the dealer has also been doubted. The dealer filed appeal before the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial), which has been allowed in part. First appellate authority found that the registration of M/S Shakti Trading Company was cancelled on 5.11.1990. Forms 3-C (5) nos. 520389 and 520373 were issued by M/S Shakti Trading Company relating to the purchases made prior to the date of the cancellation of the registration, accordingly, exemption has been allowed on such purchases, but the benefit against Form 3-C (5) no. 951010 and 951011could not be allowed because they have been issued in respect of the purchases made after the date of the cancellation of the registration. Against the order of the first appellate authority, the dealer as well as Commissioner of Trade Tax filed appeals before the Tribunal. Tribunal by the impugned order allowed the appeal of the dealer and rejected the appeal of the Commissioner of Trade Tax. Tribunal held that the order of the assessing authority cancelling the registration on 5.11.1990 has been served on M/S Shakti Trading Company on 5,12,1990 while these forms were issued on 1.12.1990. Tribunal also found that so far as the present dealer is concerned, it was not the obligation of the dealer who has received the Form3-C (5) to know that the registration of the selling party has been cancelled or is going to be cancelled by the department. Tribunal, accordingly, allowed the exemption on the basis of Form 3-C (5).

Heard counsel for the parties.

I do not find any error in the order of the Tribunal. The alleged form 3-C (5) on the basis of which exemption has been claimed, have not been found to be forged. Admittedly, they have been issued by the department to M/S Shakti Trading Company, who had issued these forms to the present dealer. No case has been made out by the revenue that these forms were forged and obtained as a result of collusion between the parties. It is settled principle of law that the claim of exemption against the form cannot be denied unless the form is found to be forged and obtained as a result of collusion between the parties. Reliance is placed on the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of M/S Chunni Lal Parshadi Lal Versus Commissioner of Sales Tax reported in 1986 UPTC 747 and this Court in the case of M/S Bharat Iron Stores Versus Commissioner of Sales Tax reported in 1994 UPTC 130.

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

Dated.24.09.2005.

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.