Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

THE COMMISSIONER, TRADE TAX, U.P. LUCKNOW versus S/S KONARK LOCKS, DURGAPURI ALIGARH

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 Konark Locks, Durgapuri Aligarh - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION DEFECTIVE No. 1820 of 1998 [2005] RD-AH 6220 (22 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. (1820) Of 1998.

AND

TRADE TAX REVISION NO. (1825) Of 1998.

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

Vs

M/S Konark Locks, Aligarh.      ... Opp. Party.

Hon'ble Rajes Kumr, J.

These two revisions under Section 11 of U.P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") are directed against the orders of Tribunal dated 21.05.1998 relating to the assessment years 1991-92 and 1992-93 under the U. P. Trade Tax Act respectively.

Dealer/opposite party (hereinafter referred to as "the dealer") was carrying on the business of manufacture and sale of Cycle Locks.  The locks were manufactured out of the Iron Scrap purchased locally.  The turnover of Locks disclosed by the dealer were accepted by the Assessing Authority. However, turnover of Scrap obtained after manufacturing of locks have been enhanced and have been subjected to tax by the Assessing Authority on the ground that the scrap obtained after manufacturing was the manufactured product and was different to the scrap purchased locally.  First appeals filed by the dealer were allowed.  First Appellate Authority held that the scrap was locally purchased, therefore, Iron scrap was not liable to tax.  Tribunal up held the order of the First Appellate Authority.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

Learned Standing Counsel submitted that the scrap, which was sold, was different than the scrap, which was purchased, therefore, scrap, which was obtained after manufacturing of Locks, was liable to tax.  I do not find any substance in the argument of learned Standing Counsel.  Iron Scrap is covered under the entry 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act, therefore, it cannot be subjected to tax twice in view of Section 15 of Central Sales Tax Act.  Dealer had purchased Iron Scrap locally and from such Scrap manufactured Lock and remaining Scrap have been sold.  The Iron Scrap sold was the part of Iron Scrap purchased, thus, not liable to tax..

In the result, both the revision fail, and are, accordingly, dismissed.

Dt:22.11.2005.

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.