Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

THE COMMISSIONER, TRADE TAX, U.P. LUCKNOW versus S/S. KAILASH NATH RAM BABU VILLAHAUR, KANPUR DEHAT

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


The Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P. Lucknow v. S/S. Kailash Nath Ram Babu Villahaur, Kanpur Dehat - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 1164 of 1995 [2005] RD-AH 374 (9 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.1164 OF 1995

AND

TRADE TAX REVISION NO.1331 OF 1995

AND

TRADE TAX REVISION NO.1334 OF 1995

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

Versus

S/S Kailash Nath Ram Babu Villahaur, Kanpur Dehat. ....Opp.party

................

Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.

These three revisions under Section 11 of U.P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as "Act") are directed against the order of Tribunal dated 25.07.1995 for the assessment years 1989-90 (U.P. and Central) and 1990-91.

Dealer/opposite party (hereinafter referred to as "Dealer")  was carrying on the business of foods grains and oil seed. It appears that two surveys were made on Villahaur shop on 28.11.1990 and 22.01.1991 by the S.T.O. (S.I.B.) and at the time of survey one Sri Satya Prakash was present. It appears that certain documents were found at the time of survey. Assessing authority treated the said shop as branch office of the dealer and the documents found were relating to the dealer and adverse inference were drawn.  Dealer denied to have any branch office at Villahaur and submitted that the aforesaid two surveys were not relating to its business. Assessing authority had not accepted the plea of the dealer and treated the alleged two surveys relating to the dealer business. First appellate authority remanded back the matter. Tribunal allowed the appeal and held that the alleged Villahaur shop was not the branch office of the dealer and the alleged two surveys  were not relating to the dealer business.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Tribunal considered each and every aspect of the matter in detail and concluded that the alleged shop on which surveys were made on 28.11.1990 and 22.01.1991 by S.T.O. (S.I.B.) were not branch office of the dealer and the seized documents were not relating to the dealer business and on the basis of the material available on record estimated the turn over. Issue involved is concluded by finding of fact. No question of law is involved in the present revisions.

In the result, all the three revisions fail and are accordingly, dismissed.

Dt.09.02.2005

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.