Case Details

M/S PRINCE GLASS WORKS, S.N.ROAD FIROZABAD versus THE COMMISSIONER OF TRADE TAX. U.P. LOK.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement

M/S Prince Glass Works, S.N.Road Firozabad v. The Commissioner Of Trade Tax. U.P. Lok. - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 378 of 1999 [2005] RD-AH 6575 (29 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. 378 Of 1999.

AND

TRADE TAX REVISION NO. 379 Of 1999.

M/S Prince Glass Works, Firozabad. ... Applicant.

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

Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, 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 07.01.1999 both relating to the assessment years 1985-86 and 1990-91 under the U. P. Trade Tax Act respectively.

It appears that during the course of assessment proceeding, it was found that the dealer had imported coal without Form 31 and accordingly, penalty under Section 15-A (1) (o) were levied. It was claimed by the dealer that Form 31 were applied with the Assessing Authority, but the same could not be provided and since the applicant was in need of coal, the same were imported without Form 31. The penalty orders under Section 15-A (1) (o) were up held by the First Appellate Authority as well as by the Tribunal.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that no case of an attempt to evade tax was made out, inasmuch as, dealer had shown purchases in their books of account. I find substance in the argument of learned Counsel for the applicant. In the present case, during the course of assessment proceeding, Assessing Authority found that the dealer had imported coal from outside the State of U. P. Purchases made from outside the State of U. P. were shown in the books of account. No case had been made out that any attempt to evade tax was made by the dealer. It has been consistently held by this Court that unless a case of an attempt to evade tax is made out, penalty under Section 15-A (1) (o) cannot be levied. In the absence of any finding that the dealer had attempted to evade tax, penalty is not justified.

In the result, both the revisions are allowed. Orders of Tribunal are set aside and the penalty levied under Section 15-A (1) (o) are quashed.

Dt:29.11.2005.

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

Case Details

Case Law Search

Judgement

Copyright

Advertisement