Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

BAGAI GOLDEN TRANSPORT COMPANY versus THE COMMISSIONER, TRADE TAX, U.P., LUCKNOW

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Bagai Golden Transport Company v. The Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P., Lucknow - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 235 of 1998 [2005] RD-AH 4557 (21 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

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 14.10.1992 relating to assessment year 1982-83.

Dealer/Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as "the Dealer") was engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of H.D.P.E made item, which had been named as Slip Film Tape, required in the manufacturing of bags.  Dealer claimed that it was Yarn and liable to tax as Yarn @ 2%.  Assessing Authority had not accepted the plea and levied tax on the turnover of Slip Film Tape @ 4% under the entry "Tapes, Laces and Niwar".  First Appellate Authority had accepted the claim of dealer and held that it was liable to tax @ 2% as Yarn. The Tribunal up held the view of First Appellate Authority.

Heard learned Standing Counsel. No one appears on behalf of the dealer despite service of notice.  Learned Standing Counsel submitted that the name of product itself shows that it was Tape.  No reason had been given by the First Appellate Authority as well as by the Tribunal for holding such Slip Film Tape as Yarn.  The product had not been properly examined and without examining the product, it had been treated as Yarn.

I have perused the order of Tribunal and the authorities below.  Both the authorities have not examined the nature of product while coming to the conclusion that it was Yarn.  The name of the product shows that it was Tape, therefore, it was necessary for the Tribunal to examine the nature of the product before coming to the conclusion that it was Yarn.  In my opinion, matter requires reconsideration by the Tribunal.

In the result, revision is allowed.  Order of Tribunal is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal to decide the appeal afresh in the light of observations made above.

Dt:21.10.2005.

MZ/235/93.


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.