Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

GHANSHYAM & ANOTHER versus THE COMMISSIONER OF TRADE TAX, U.P. LUCKNOW

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Ghanshyam & Another v. The Commissioner Of Trade Tax, U.P. Lucknow - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 37 of 1999 [2005] RD-AH 5122 (28 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.37 OF 1999

Ghanshyam and another.      ....Applicants

Versus

The Commissioner of Trade Tax, U.P., Lucknow.       ....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 11.09.1998 for the assessment year 1997-98, by which Tribunal has sustained the penalty at Rs.28,000/- under section 13-A (4) of the Act.

Brief facts of the case are that on 27.08.1997 Trade Tax Officer, Mobile Squad intercepted the vehicle no.DNA-6978 and found 7 pcs. Mentha crystal being transported to Delhi. Alongwith the goods there were no documents and, therefore, the good was seized and it was  valued at Rs.1 lac and security of Rs.40,000/- was demanded. Good was subsequently, released on furnishing of security at Rs.40,000/-.  In pursuance of the seizure order, notice under section 13-A (3) of the Act was issued, which has been replied by the applicant.  In reply, it was contended that the good belonged to one Shri Devendra Gupta, who was agriculturist. The claim of the applicant was not accepted and a sum of Rs.40,000/- was levied towards penalty. First appeal filed by the applicant was rejected. Applicant filed second appeal before the Tribunal, which has been allowed in part and the Tribunal  has reduced the amount of penalty to Rs.28,000/-. Tribunal has not accepted the plea of the applicant that the good belonged to Shri Devendra Gupta, who was agriculturist. Tribunal, however, accepted the plea of the applicant that the weight of the good was 145 kg. and not 200 kg. Tribunal accordingly, estimated the value of the good at Rs.70,000/- and levied the penalty at Rs.12,000/-.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the goods belonged to Shri Devendra Gupta, who was agriculturist and, therefore, levy of penalty is not justified. He further submitted that the Tribunal has mentioned that on 27.08.1997 in Dainik Jagaran news paper published from Delhi rate of mentha crystal was Rs.200/- per kg. Thus, there is no justification for estimating the value @ 500/- per kg. He further submitted that the Tribunal has not given any reason for imposing the penalty at 40% of the value of the goods, which is maximum.

I have perused the order of Tribunal and the authorities below.

I do not find any substance in the argument of learned counsel for the applicant that the goods belonged to Shri Devendra Gupta, who was agriculturist. Tribunal and the authority below found that the good was mentha crystal, which was not agriculture produce and penalty has been levied treating the applicant as purchaser of mentha crystal. However, I find substance in the argument of learned counsel for the applicant that in the Dainik Jagaran news paper published from Delhi, the rate of mentha crystal was Rs.200/- per kg. on 27.08.1997, thus there is no justification for taking the selling rate at Rs.500/- per kg. No basis has been given for taking the selling rate at Rs.500/- per kg. Tribunal has also not given any basis for levy of penalty at 40% of the value of the goods, which is maximum.  In these circumstances, in my view matter requires reconsideration by the Tribunal. Tribunal is directed to re-determine the value of the goods and quantum of penalty afresh.

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

Dt.28.10.2005

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.