Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

THE COMMISSIONER, TRADE TAX, U.P. LUCKNOW versus S/S GIRRAJ DHARAN SHRI NATH DAS JAWAHARGANJ MATHURA

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


The Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P. Lucknow v. S/S Girraj Dharan Shri Nath Das Jawaharganj Mathura - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 33 of 1999 [2005] RD-AH 5581 (10 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).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

COURT NO.55

TRADE TAX REVISION NO. 33 Of 1999.

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

Vs.

S/S Girraj Dharan Shri Nath Dass, Mathura.      ...   Opp. Party.          

Hon'ble Rajes Kumr, J.

Present revision under Section 11 of U.P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") is directed against the order of Tribunal dated 12.12.1997 relating to the assessment year 1986-87 under the U. P. Trade Tax Act, by which, the Tribunal has accepted the claim of dealer that the purchases of Rs.22,74,747.40 have been made in the course of interstate purchases.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

Learned Standing Counsel submitted that the Tribunal has accepted the claim of dealer without examining the transaction and giving the details of purchases and their despatch.  He further submitted that the Assessing Authority had held that the purchases were made on own account from Kachcha Arhatiya and in respect of which, Form 3-C (1) was issued and also referred to various Purchas which were found at the time of survey made by the STO (SIB) for coming to the conclusion that the purchases were made on own account and not on behalf of Ex-U.P. Principal and such Purchas have not been considered at all by the Tribunal.  Learned Counsel for the dealer relied upon the order of the Tribunal.

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

In my opinion, order of Tribunal is not sustainable.  For coming to the conclusion that the purchases have been made in the course of interstate purchases for and on behalf of Ex- U. P. Principal, it is necessary to examine that the purchases were made on the basis of instructions or order of Ex- U. P. Principal and after purchases, the said goods have been despatched at the destination of Ex-U. P. Principal and there was co-relation with the purchases and despatch in view of the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the case of C.S.T Vs. M/S Bakhtawar Lal Kailash Chandra reported in 1992 UPTC  page 971. Therefore, to hold a particular transaction as the purchases in the course of interstate purchases, it is necessary to examine each and every transactions.  Perusal of order of Tribunal shows that a vague observations has been made by the Tribunal without examining various transactions and giving details.  Tribunal has also not considered the reasons given by the Assessing Authority for rejecting the claim of the dealer.  Thus, the order of Tribunal is vitiated.

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

Dt:10.11.2005.

MZ/-


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.