Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

THE COMMISSIONER, TRADE TAX U.P. LUCKNOW versus S/S ALLIED TANNERY

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 Allied Tannery - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION DEFECTIVE No. 1048 of 1998 [2005] RD-AH 4163 (6 October 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.  (1048) Of 1998.

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

Vs

S/S Allied Tannery, Kanpur. ... Opp.party.

Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.

The present revision under Section 11 of U. P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as "Act") is directed against the order of Tribunal dated 26.02.1998 relating to the assessment year 1992-93 under the U.P. Trade Tax Act.

Dealer/Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as "the Dealer") purchased raw-hide and Skin against Form 3-A and after tanning, sold for Rs.15,88,744.28 Paise against Form 3-B.  It appears that the Assessing Authority did not levy tax under Section 3-AAAA of the Act in the original assessment order.  The Deputy Commissioner (Executive) initiated proceeding under Section 10-B of the Act to revise the assessment order on the ground that Section 3-AAAA of the Act has been reintroduced with retrospective effect and according to Section 3-AAAA purchases of raw-hide and Skin was liable to tax.  The Deputy Commissioner (Executive) accordingly levied tax on the purchases of raw hide and Skin.  Dealer filed appeal before the Tribunal.  Tribunal vide impugned order, allowed the appeal and deleted the tax.

Heard leaned Counsel for the parties.

I do not find any error in the order of Tribunal.  Section 3-AAAA reads as follows:-

Section 3-AAAA

Liability to tax on purchase of goods in certain circumstances.  Subject to the provision of Section 3, every dealer who purchases any goods liable to tax at the point of sale to consumer-

(a)     From any registered dealer in circumstances in which no tax is payable by such registered dealer, shall be liable to pay tax on the purchase price of such goods at the same rate at which, but for such circumstances, tax would have been payable on the sale of such goods;

(b)   From any person other than a registered dealer whether or not tax is payable by such person, shall be liable to pay tax on the purchase price of such goods at the same rate at which tax is payable on the sale of such goods;

Provided that no tax shall be leviable on the purchase price of such goods in the circumstances mentioned in Clauses (a) and (b), if

(i) such goods purchased from a registered dealer have already been subjected to tax or may be subjected to tax under Section 3-AAA;

(ii) tax has already been paid in respect of such goods purchased from any person other than a registered dealer;

(iii) the purchasing dealer resells such goods within the State or in the course of inter state trade or commerce of exports out of the territory of India, in the same form and condition in which  he had purchased them;

(iv) such goods are liable to be exempted under Section 4-A of the Act.

Explanation- of Section 3-AAAA which is also applicable to section 3AAA says that dressed hide and skin or tanned leather after dressing of tanning raw hides and skin shall be deemed to be in the same form and condition.

The explanation of Section 3-AAAA says that both raw-hide and Skin and tanned hide and Skin are deemed to be in the same form and condition.  Proviso-(iii) to Section 3-AAAA says that if the purchasing dealer resells such goods within the State or in the course of interstate trade or commerce or exports out of the territory of India, in the same form and condition in which he had purchased them, no tax shall be leviable on the purchases price of such goods.  In the present case, tanned leather have been sold inside the State of U. P. against Form 3-B, therefore, in view of proviso (iii), tax is not leviable under Section 3-AAAA.

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

Dt:06.10.2005.

MZ/-


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.