Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

THE COMMISSIONER,TRADE TAX U.P.LUCKNOW versus RAM PRATAP SHARMA

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


The Commissioner,Trade Tax U.P.Lucknow v. Ram Pratap Sharma - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 287 of 1997 [2005] RD-AH 359 (4 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.287 OF 1997

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

Versus

S/S Ram Pratap Sharma, Banda. ....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 13.12.1996 for the assessment year 1985-86.

Dealer/opposite party (hereinafter referred to as "Dealer") was running a rice mill and was involved in the manufacturing of rice from paddy. Admittedly, dealer was granted recognition certificate under section 4-B of the Act on 01.04.1986 Therefore, the dealer was admittedly not holding the any recognition certificate during the year under consideration. Assessing authority levied the tax on the purchase  of paddy under section 3-D (1) of the Act. First appeal filed by the dealer was allowed on the ground that  the paddy and rice both were declared goods under section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act and rice after manufacturing were sold to registered dealer as well as to RFC. Commissioner of Trade Tax filed appeal before the Tribunal. Tribunal by the impugned order upheld the order of first appellate authority.

Heard learned Standing Counsel.

List revised. No one appears on behalf of dealer.

Learned Standing Counsel submitted that the paddy and rice are two different commodity. Both commodity may be declared commodity under section 14 of Central Sales Tax Act but the paddy being a different commodity liable to tax at the point of purchase under section 3-D of the Act because dealer was not holding recognition certificate under section 4-B of the Act. I find force in the argument of learned Standing Counsel. In the case of Raja Provision Stores Vs. Appellate Tribunal (Sales Tax), Trivandrum, reported in 105 STC, 325. Apex Court held that paddy and rice are two different commodity. Both may be declared commodity under section 14 of Central Sales Tax Act but it does not make any difference. Since the dealer was not holding recognition certificate under section 4-B of the Act during the year under consideration purchases of paddy  were liable to tax under section 3-D of the Act. First appellate authority as well as Tribunal has erred in deleting the tax levied on paddy.

In the result, revision is allowed. Order of first appellate authority and the order of Tribunal are set aside and the order of assessing authority is restored

Dt.04.02.2005

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.