Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


The Commissioner, Trade Tax U.P, Lucknow. v. S/S Tripathi And Sons, Hata Deoria - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION DEFECTIVE No. 828 of 1998 [2005] RD-AH 5362 (8 November 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).


Court no.55

TRADE TAX REVISION NO.(828) of 1998.

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


S/S Tripathi and Sons, Hata, Deoria.  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 27th January, 1998 relating to the assessment year 1981-82 under the Central Sales Tax Act.

Dealer-opposite party (hereinafter referred to as �??dealer�??) has disclosed the inter-State sales for Rs. 2,17,384.77 paise. It appears that some information has been forwarded by the STO (SIB), which has been received from the check post, that the dealer has sent food grains outside the State of U.P. for Rs. 4, 78,974/-. Detail of such transaction has also been given in the form of name of the party, bags, value, date of the bill and truck number. Dealer appeared before the assessing authority and stated that out of the information received, dealer has sent only 10 consignments and rest of the information was incorrect. In support of his contention an affidavit was also filed. The assessing authority, however, estimated the taxable turnover at Rs. 7 lacs on the basis of the unverified transaction. First appellate authority rejected the appeal. Tribunal allowed the second appeal. It appears that before the Tribunal, dealer has filed the certificate of the Senior Distribution Inspector, Hata, Padrauna in which it has been certified that the dealer has only despatched 10 trucks outside the State of U.P. It was also argued before the Tribunal that the information received from the check post was unsigned and has not been verified by any of the officer. Tribunal accepted the plea of the dealer and held that the unsigned information could not be relied upon. Tribunal further held that the certificate of Senior Distribution Inspector, Hata, Padrauna certify that only 10 trucks has been despatched by the dealer.

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

I do not find any error in the order of the Tribunal. Finding of the Tribunal is finding of fact, which is based on the material on record. No question of law is involved in the present revision.

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

Dated. 08.11.2005.



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


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 |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.