Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

THE COMMISSIONER, TRADE TAX, U.P. LKO. versus SUPERWINE DISTRIBUTORS, KANPUR

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


The Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P. Lko. v. Superwine Distributors, Kanpur - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 1216 of 1996 [2005] RD-AH 382 (10 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

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 13.08.1996 for the assessment year 1984-85.

Dealer/Opp. party (hereinafter referred to as ''Act') was carrying on the business of Indian Made Foreign Liquor and claimed to have made purchases only inside the State of U. P.  It appears that on the basis of information that the opp. party had obtained permit from the Excise Department, Kanpur and against the said permit, imported the Indian Made Foreign Liquor against Form 31 an adverse inference had been drawn.  Matter came up before the Tribunal, Tribunal vide its order dated 10.11.1987 remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer with the direction that the assessee may also cross examine any witness which the Department relies in relation to the assessee.  It appears that the Assessing Authority again passed a fresh order without making proper enquiry.  However, matter has been remanded thrice, but of no use.  It appears that a proper enquiry as directed had not been made.  Vide impugned order, Tribunal allowed the appeal and held that the revenue failed to prove their case that the alleged information about the import of Indian Made Foreign Liquor relates to the opp. party.  Finding of Tribunal is the finding of fact based on the material on record and does not require any interference.  

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

Dt:10.02.05.

MZ/1216/96


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.