Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

THE COMMISSIONER, TRADE TAX, U.P. LKO. versus M/S TEJO ENGINEERING SERVICE (P) LTD. SONEBHADRA

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


The Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P. Lko. v. M/S Tejo Engineering Service (P) Ltd. Sonebhadra - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 815 of 2004 [2005] RD-AH 4656 (23 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.815 OF 2004

AND

TRADE TAX REVISION NO.1122 OF 2004

AND

TRADE TAX REVISION NO.1131 OF 2004

AND

TRADE TAX REVISION NO.1132 OF 2004

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

Versus

S/S Tejo Engineering Service (P) Ltd., Sonebhadra. ....Opp. Party

***************

Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.

These four revisions under section 11 of U.P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as "Act") are directed against the order of Tribunal dated 23.12.2003 for the assessment years 1996-97, 97-98, 98-99 and 99-2000, by which Tribunal has deleted the penalty under section 15-A (1)(o) of the Act.

It appears that during the course of assessment proceedings it was found by the assessing authority that the dealer/opposite party (hereinafter referred to as "Dealer") had imported certain goods from outside the State of U.P. without declaration form and on that basis levied penalty under section 15-A (1)(o) of the Act. Tribunal found that the dealer itself had declared the import of the goods and there was no attempt to evade the tax. Finding of the Tribunal is finding of fact. Learned Standing Counsel is not able to assail the findings recorded by the Tribunal. It is settled principal of law that unless a case of attempt to evade the payment of tax is made out, penalty is not leviable under section 15-A (1) (o) of the Act.

On the facts and  circumstances of the case, I do not find any reason to interfere in the order of the Tribunal. Finding of the Tribunal is finding of fact, based on material on record. No question of law is involved in the present revisions.

In the result, all the revisions fail and are accordingly, dismissed.

Dt.23.11.2005

R./


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.