Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

THE COMMISSIONER TRADE TAX UP LKO. versus S/S MENTHA & ALLIED PRODUCTS LTD.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


The Commissioner Trade Tax Up Lko. v. S/S Mentha & Allied Products Ltd. - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 23 of 1999 [2005] RD-AH 5076 (27 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.23 of 1999

AND

TRADE TAX REVISION NO.26 of 1999

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

Versus

S/S Mentha & Allied Products Ltd., Civil Lines, Rampur.                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 10.11.1997 relating to the assessment years, 1994-95 for the months of October, 1994 and January, 1995 by which the Tribunal has deleted the penalty levied under section 15-A (1) (a) of the Act.

Penalty under section 15-A (1) (a) of the Act was levied on account of non-deposit of tax, which according to the assessing authority was 2.5 percent on the purchases of mentha oil as per notification no. 1623, dated 21st May, 1994. It was contended by the dealer/opposite party (hereinafter referred to as "dealer") that writ petition no.645 of 1994 was filed before the Hon'ble High Court challenging the notification no.1623 dated 21st May, 1994. Writ Petition was entertained and interim order was also passed. However, the writ petition was dismissed on 17th January, 1996 against which SLP no.11952 of 1996 was filed on 26.7.1996 which was also dismissed on 17th January, 1997. It was submitted that under the bonafide believe the amount could not be deposited inasmuch as the dealer was disputing the liability of tax. Tribunal has accepted the reasons given by the dealer for non-deposit of tax within the specified time as reasonable cause and, accordingly, deleted the penalty.

Heard learned Standing Counsel. No one appears on behalf of the dealer/opposite party.

I have perused the order of the Tribunal. The finding of the Tribunal is finding of fact. Learned Standing Counsel is not able to assail the findings recorded by the Tribunal. Under section 15-A (1) (a) of the Act, penalty is leviable in case if the amount of tax due is not deposited within a specified time without any reasonable cause, therefore, for the levy of penalty, it is necessary to make out a case that in not depositing the tax within the specified time, there was no reasonable cause. Perusal of the penalty order shows that no such case has been made out inasmuch as the dealer has given the explanation for the delay in depositing the tax, which has been accepted by the Tribunal. I do not see any reason to interfere in the order of the Tribunal.

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

Dated. 27.10.2005

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.