Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

S/S BRIJ LAL AND COMPANY,TILHAR, SHAHJAHANPUR. versus COMMISSIONER TRADE TAX U.P. LKO.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


S/S Brij Lal and Company,Tilhar, Shahjahanpur. v. Commissioner Trade Tax U.P. Lko. - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 283 of 1999 [2005] RD-AH 6068 (21 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.283 of 1999

AND

TRADE TAX REVISION NO.284 of 1999

S/S Brij Lal and Company,Tilhar, Shahjahanpur.       Applicant

Versus

The Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P., Lucknow.                  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 31st March, 1999 relating to the assessment years, 1982-83 and 1983-84 both under the U.P. Trade Tax Act.

For the assessment year, 1982-83, following two questions have been raised.

"(1) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the rejection of books of account and estimate of the turnover was justified?

(2) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the levy of tax on the purchase of rice bran amounting to Rs. 6,53,650/- and corresponding sales made against Form 111 Kha was justified?"

For the assessment year, 1983-84, following question has been raised.

"Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the levy of tax on the purchase of rice bran amounting to Rs. 6,53,650/- and corresponding sales made against Form 111 Kha was justified?"

The applicant was carrying on the business of rice bran etc. During the year under consideration, the applicant has sold rice bran to the extraction plant against Form 111-B and claimed exemption on the purchases of rice bran for both the assessment years. Rice bran is liable to tax at the point of first purchase under notification issued in exercise of powers under section 3-D of the Act. Assessing authority rejected the claim of exemption on the purchases of rice bran against Form 111-B on the ground that the applicant was not holding a recognition certificate under section 4-B of the Act and the benefit of the provisions of Section 4-B (a-1) of the Act is not available inasmuch as the rice bran is not a declared commodity. For the assessment year 1982-83, books of account have been rejected on the ground that there was a difference in the return version and book version and at the time of inspection dated 28.5.1982 made by the Sales Tax Officer, Mobile Squad, the applicant was found sending rice bran outside the books of account in respect of which penalty under section 13-A (4) of the Act was levied which was sustained in appeal. Books of account were rejected and suppressed turnover of rice bran was estimated. First appellate authority has upheld the disallowance of the claim of exemption against Form 111-B and confirmed the order of the assessing authority for the assessment year 1982-83, so far as rejection of the books of account and the estimate of turnover is concerned, applicant filed appeals before the Tribunal which have been rejected by the impugned order.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that for the assessment year 1982-83, books of account has been illegally rejected. He submitted that there was no difference in the gross turnover and the difference was only in net turnover and the explanation with regard to difference has also been given. He submitted that that ghuta, which was intercepted by the STO on 28.5.1982, was found entered in the books of account and, therefore, the books of account is liable to be accepted. With regard to the claim of exemption on the turnover of rice bran against Form 111-B he is not able to substantiate the claim of exemption. Learned Standing Counsel relied upon the order of the Tribunal.

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

I do not find any substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the applicant. Tribunal has mainly rejected the books of account on the ground that the applicant was found sending one truck Ghuta outside the books of account, in respect of which, penalty was levied, which was sustained in appeal. The finding of the Tribunal is finding of fact and there is no reason to interfere with the finding recorded by the Tribunal. Rejection of the books of account is, accordingly, upheld.

So far as claim of exemption on the purchases of rice bran against Form 111-B is concerned, learned counsel for the applicant is not able to substantiate its claim under section 4-B (1) of the Act, exemption on the purchase is available to the dealer holding recognition certificate and Section 4-B (a-1) of the Act is applicable to the declared commodity. Therefore, both the sub-sections granting exemption on the purchase against Form 111-B are not applicable.

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

Dated.21.11.2005.

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.