Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

THE COMMISSIONER, TRADE TAX, LKO versus M/S PODDAR SALES CORPORATION, KANPUR

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


The Commissioner, Trade Tax, Lko v. M/S Poddar Sales Corporation, Kanpur - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 955 of 1997 [2005] RD-AH 628 (3 March 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.955 of 1997

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

Versus

S/S Poddar Sales Corporation, Kanpur.      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 3rd March, 1997 relating to the assessment year, 1984-85.

Short question involved in the present revision is whether hand cart tubes is exempted from tax under notification no. ST-II-53/X/11(9) 78 U.P. Act XV/48 Order-82 dated 30th January,1982. First appellate authority and the Tribunal held that this item falls under the aforesaid notification which include Animal driven vehicles including carts having pneumatic tyre-wheels and tyres and tubes thereof. It has been treated as tubes of Animal driven vehicles. Learned Standing Counsel submitted that the aforesaid notification has been amended by the notification no. ST-II-7038/X-7 (23)/83 U.P. Act XV/48-Order-85 dated 31st January, 1985 in which under the head Animal Drawn Agricultural Implements, tyre and tube has been deleted. Argument of the Standing Counsel may be correct, but assessment year involved in the present revision is 1984-85 and Learned Standing Counsel is not able to show that the sale of goods in dispute relates to the period after 31st January, 1985. In the circumstances, I do not find any error in the order of the Tribunal.

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

Dated. 03.03.2005.

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.