Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

THE COMMISSIONER, TRADE TAX, U.P. LUCKNOW versus S/S SUNDERLAL MITTAL, SADABAD HATHRAS

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 Sunderlal Mittal, Sadabad Hathras - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION DEFECTIVE No. 1193 of 1998 [2005] RD-AH 4166 (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.(1193) of 1998.

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

Versus

M/S Sunderlal Mittal, Sadabad Gate, Hathras.  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 27th March, 1998 by which the Tribunal has deleted the penalty levied under section 13-A (4) of the Act.

At the time of inspection, the Trade Tax Officer, Mobile Squad, Bareilly, intercepted the vehicle in which there was 32 drums of crude oil, but no document was available. When the show cause notice was issued, the dealer replied that said goods were purchased from one S/S Baboo Traders, Richha, Bareilly, who was unregistered dealer. It was also stated that S/S Baboo Traders, Richha, Bareilly had purchased the said oil from M/S Polypack Corporation Ltd, Khatia, Nainital and since S/S Baboo Traders, Richha, Bareilly was unregistered dealer and engaged in the business of purchase and sale, bill was not issued. However, when the goods had arrived at the dealer shop, necessary entries were made in the books of account. It was claimed that no evasion of tax was involved in the transaction. Assessing authority has not accepted the explanation of the dealer and levied penalty at Rs.18,000/- under section 13-A (4) of the Act. The explanation of the dealer has been accepted in first appeal and by the Tribunal. I do not find any error in the order of the Tribunal. Finding of the Tribunal is based on the material on record and cannot be said to be arbitrary or perverse. There is no merit in the present revision.

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

Dated.06.10.2005.

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.