Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

M/S MADHU ICE CREAM versus THE COMMISSIONER OF TRADE TAX

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


M/S Madhu Ice Cream v. The Commissioner Of Trade Tax - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 1203 of 1996 [2005] RD-AH 638 (4 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.1203 of 1996

M/S Madhu Ice Cream, Allahabad..             Applicant

Versus

Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P. Lucknow.  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 22nd March, 1996 relating to the assessment year, 1982-83.

Applicant was engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of Ice Cream. Applicant had disclosed sale at Rs. 2,84,373.94 p. Assessing authority rejected the books of account and estimated the sale of Ice Cream at Rs. 4,20,000/- and purchase of cream at Rs. 50,000/-. In first appeal sale of ice cream was reduced to Rs. 3 lacs and purchase of cream at Rs. 36,000/-. Commissioner of Trade Tax filed appeal before the Tribunal. Tribunal by impugned order allowed the appeal of the Commissioner of Trade Tax and restored the assessment order.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Assessing authority estimated the turnover on the basis of the previous year assessment in which as against the disclosed turnover at Rs.2,67,676.27 p, turnover at Rs. 4 lacs was estimated. In this year, as against disclosed turnover at Rs.2,84,375.39 p, turnover of ice cream has been estimated at Rs.4,20,000/- which has been restored by the Tribunal. I do not find any error in the order of the Tribunal. There is no merit in the present revision.

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

Dated:04.03.2005.

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.