Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

THE COMMISSIONER, TRADE TAX, UP LUCKNOW versus S/S JAWAHAR AUTOMOBILES JAWAHAR BAGH MORADABAD

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


The Commissioner, Trade Tax, Up Lucknow v. S/S Jawahar Automobiles Jawahar Bagh Moradabad - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 899 of 1997 [2005] RD-AH 472 (21 February 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.899 OF 1997

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

Versus

S/S Jawahar Automobiles, Moradabad. ....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 1st March, 1997 relating to the assessment year, 1988-89.

Dealer/opposite party (hereinafter referred to as "Dealer") was engaged in the business of selling the motor vehicle chassis which was liable to tax at the point of sale to customer. The chassis were purchased against Form 3-A and were sold inside the State of U.P. on which the tax under the U.P. Trade Tax Act has been paid. On the instruction of the buyer the dealer has also sent the alleged chassis to Delhi for mounting of body and separate bill for the body was raised. Assessing authority levied tax on the chassis under section 3-AAAA of the Act on the ground that the chassis was not sold in the same form and condition. First appeal was allowed. First appellate authority held that the chassis and the body were sold separately and two separate bills were raised. It has been further held that the tax has been paid on the sale of chassis, therefore, provision of section 3-AAAA of the Act was not attracted. Commissioner of Trade Tax filed appeal before the Tribunal which has been dismissed by the impugned order.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

I do not find any error in the order of the Tribunal. Authorities below have held that both chassis and body were sold separately against two separate bills and  tax was paid on the sale of the chassis, therefore, the provision of Section 3-AAAA of the Act was not applicable. In my view, order of the Tribunal is correct and tax has been rightly deleted by the first appellate authority which has been confirmed by the Tribunal.

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

Dated: 21.02.2005

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.