High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
The Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P. Lucknow v. S/S Man Mohan Singh, 14-A-19, G.T. Road, Kanpur. - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 802 of 2004  RD-AH 4531 (20 October 2005)
TRADE TAX REVISION NO.802 of 2004
TRADE TAX REVISION NO.803 of 2004
The Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P., Lucknow. Applicant
S/S Man Mohan Singh, 14-A-19, G.T. Road, Kanpur. Opp.party
Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.
Present two revisions under Section 11 of U.P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as "Act") are directed against the order of Tribunal dated 5th December, 2003 both relating to the assessment year 1996-97.
On the basis of the information that the dealer/opposite party (hereinafter referred to as "dealer") had obtained Form 34 no.8857 dated 3.6.1997 at the entry check post, but could not surrender at the exit check post, proceedings under sections 7 (4) and 15-A (1) (q) of the Act were initiated. It appears that in the absence of dealer, ex-parte orders have been passed under sections 7 (4) and 15-A (1) (q) of the Act. Dealer filed appeals before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), which were allowed, and the matters were remanded back to the assessing authority. Before the appellate authority, the dealer had disputed to have obtained the alleged Form 34 at the entry check post and requested for the confrontation of alleged Form 34. First appellate authority while remanding back the matters to the assessing authority has directed to provide copy of Form 34 and to confront panji 3 register. It appears that the assessing authority has again passed the orders under sections 7 (4) and 15-A (1) (q) of the Act without providing copy of Form 34 and confronting panji 3 register mainly on the ground that the alleged Form 34 was not surrendered at the exit check post drawing presumption of sale by the dealer under section 28-B of the Act. Dealer filed appeals before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) which were allowed and the orders passed under sections 7 (4) and 15-A (1) (q) of the Act have been set aside. Commissioner of Trade Tax filed appeals before the Tribunal, which were rejected. Both the first appellate authority and the Tribunal held that despite the directions given in the appellate orders to confront the Form 34 and panji 3 register which were the basis for initiating the proceedings against the dealer, Form 34 and panji 3 register have not been confronted to the dealer.
Heard learned Standing Counsel.
I do not find any error in the order of the Tribunal. When the dealer has denied to have obtained the alleged Form 34, it was incumbent upon the assessing authority to confront Form 34, which was the basis for initiating the proceeding under sections 7 (4) and 15-A (1) (q) of the Act. Since the assessing authority failed to confront the alleged Form 34, which was the basis for initiating the proceeding, assessing authority failed to establish its case that the alleged Form 34 was obtained by the dealer.
In the result, both the revisions fail and are, accordingly, dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.