Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RAM AUTAR GUPTA versus COMMISSIONER OF TRADE TAX, U.P. LUCKNOW

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Ram Autar Gupta v. Commissioner Of Trade Tax, U.P. Lucknow - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 12 of 1997 [2005] RD-AH 491 (22 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.12 OF 1997

AND

TRADE TAX REVISION NO.13 OF 1997

Ram Autar Gupta. ....Applicant

Versus

Commissioner of Trade tax, U.P. Lucknow. ....Opp.party

................

Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.

These two revisions under Section 11 of U.P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as "Act") are directed against the order of Tribunal dated 14.10.1996 for the assessment year 1985-86 both under the U.P. Trade Tax Act and Central Sales Tax Act.

Applicant was engaged in the business of Rab etc. During the year under consideration, assessing authority received information from Mandi Samiti about the despatch of the goods to outside the State of U.P. against gate passes.  In respect of some of the information, applicant filed certificate of Mandi Samiti that those gate passes were not in his name. However, some of the information has been certified by Mandi Samiti that the gate passes were in the name of the applicant. In respect of which no certificate was filed. In respect of some information, record was not available but no certificate was filed by the applicant that they did not relate to them. Assessing authority had drawn adverse inference and estimated the turn over on the basis of the information received  from Mandi Samiti about the issuance of gate passes and the despatch of goods in respect of which no certificate was filed by the applicant to prove that they did not relate to them. First appeals filed by the applicant were rejected. Applicant filed two appeals before the Tribunal. Tribunal by the impugned order allowed the appeals in part and reduced the turn over. It appears that before the Tribunal, applicant has filed certificate of Mandi Samiti in respect of those informations where it was found that the record of the Mandi Samiti was not available. Tribunal accepted the certificate and allowed the relief. Tribunal however, upheld the order of the authorities below drawing adverse inference in respect of the information received from Mandi Samiti in respect of those gate passes where the applicant could not file any certificate that they did not relate to it and the Mandi Samiti certified that gate passes were issued in the name of the applicant.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

I do not find any error in the order of Tribunal, which is based on the material on record. Finding of the Tribunal is finding of fact, which does not require any interference.

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

Dt.22.02.2005

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.