Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

THE COMMISSIONER, TRADE TAX, U.P. LUCKNOW versus S/S SWASTIK SOLVENT PRODUCTS INDIA LTD.

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 Swastik Solvent Products India Ltd. - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 1276 of 1995 [2005] RD-AH 5675 (11 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. 1276 Of 1995.

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

Vs.

S/S Swastik Solvent Products India Ltd. Rampur.      ...   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 31.07.1995 relating to the assessment year 1984-85 under the U. P. Trade Tax Act.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

Learned Standing Counsel raised two issues.  Firstly submitted that the Tribunal has erred in allowing the benefit of full exemption against Form 3-B while the sale of Rice-bran Oil was made to the Soup Industries who were not entitled to full exemption.  He further submitted that the Tribunal has erred in deleting the tax levied on rice-husk.  Learned Counsel for the opposite party submitted that the rice bran was sold to an Institution certified by U.P. Khadi and Village Industries Board and as such, both purchases and sales of such Institutions were exempted from tax under the Notification no. ST-II-5395/X dated 30.9.1982.  He further submitted that the sales were made against Form 3-B and in case if the Form had been wrongly issued by the manufacturer, claim of full exemption can not be disallowed in the case of the dealer and a necessary action can be taken against the purchaser who had issued Form 3-B for full exemption.  He submitted that the dealer had not purchased any paddy-husk or rice husk and only labour charges were paid to the labour.  Tribunal has examined the books of account and recorded the finding of fact that the purchases of rice-husk and paddy-husk have not been made.  Finding of Tribunal is the finding of fact.

I have perused the order of Tribunal and the authorities below.  I do not find any error in the order of Tribunal.  If the dealer had received Form 3-B for full exemption, it was entitled for full exemption on the basis of Form 3-B.  It is wholly irrelevant whether the purchaser was entitled for partial exemption.  In case if the Certificate was wrongly issued by the purchaser, dealer can not be held responsible and necessary action can be taken only against the purchaser who had issued Form 3-B.  So far as, levy of tax on the purchases of paddy husk and Rice husk is concerned, Tribunal has recorded the finding that the dealer had not made purchases of paddy husk and rice husk.  Finding of Tribunal is the finding of fact, which does not require any interference.

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

Dt:11.11.2005.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.