Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

THE COMMISSIONER,TRADE TAX U.P.LUCKNOW versus S/S A.VON COAL AGENCY,MAINPURI

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 A.Von Coal Agency,Mainpuri - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 416 of 1999 [2005] RD-AH 6625 (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.416 of 1999

AND

TRADE TAX REVISION NO.417 of 1999

AND

TRADE TAX REVISION NO.419 of 1999

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

Versus

S/S A. Voncoal Agency, Mainpuri.                Opp.party

...............

Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.

Present three  revisions under Section 11 of U.P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as "Act") are directed against the order of Tribunal dated 23rd March, 1999 relating to the assessment years 1984-85, 1985-86 and 1986-87.

Dealer/opposite party (hereinafter referred to as "dealer") was carrying on the business of coal. Assessing authority had declared the dealer non-taxable in the original assessment proceeding. It appears that the proceeding under section 21 were initiated on the basis of the information received about the allotment of coal Dealer submitted that coal had not been lifted  and imported inside the State of U. P. In support of his claim, affidavit and certificate of non-lifting of coal from the colliery were filed. Assessing authority, however, passed the assessment order under section 21 of the Act and estimated the escaped turnover on the basis of the information relating to the allotment of coal. First appellate authority allowed the appeals and quashed the orders passed under section 21 of the Act. Commissioner of Trade Tax filed appeals before the Tribunal, which have been rejected.

Heard learned Standing Counsel. No one appears on behalf of the dealer/opposite party.

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

I do not find any error in the order of the Tribunal. Learned Standing Counsel is not able to show any material that the coal have been lifted from the colliery against the allotment of coal.  Under section 21 of the Act, burden lies upon the revenue to prove that the goods have been lifted from the colliery and imported inside the State. Mere attachment of coal is not sufficient. Dealer in support of its contention that coal against the allotment order had not been lifted filed affidavit and certificate of non-lifting issued by the colliery. To the contrary, the revenue authority has adduced no evidence. In these circumstances, the first appellate authority and the Tribunal have rightly quashed the order passed under section 21 of the Act.

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

Dated.29.11.2005.

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.