Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

THE COMMISSIONER, TRADE TAX, U.P.LUCKNOW versus S/S RAJESHWARI KUMARI VISHAKARMA, PRATAPGARH

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 Rajeshwari Kumari Vishakarma, Pratapgarh - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION DEFECTIVE No. 76 of 1999 [2005] RD-AH 6865 (2 December 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.(76) OF 1999

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

Versus

S/S Rajeshwari Kumari Vishwakasrma, Pratapgarh. ....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 15.10.1998 for the assessment year 1983-84.

Dealer opposite party (hereinafter referred to as "Dealer") was carrying on the business of manufacture and sale of bricks.  Assessing authority had levied the tax on the purchases of coal under section 3-AAAA of the Act. Tribunal has deleted the tax on the purchases of coal under section 3-AAAA of the Act on the basis of the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of M/s Pioneer Tanneries & Glue Works, Jajmau, Kumar and another Vs. State of U.P. and another, reported in 1991 UPTC, 585, in which provisions of section 3-AAAA of the Act was declared ultra-vires. Commissioner of Trade Tax moved an application under section 22 of the Act on the ground that the provisions of Section 3-AAAA of the Act has been reintroduced w.e.f. 01.04.1974 and under the amended provisions, the purchase of coal from unregistered dealer was liable to tax under section 3-AAAA of the Act. By the impugned order Tribunal has rejected the application under section 22 of the Act.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Learned Standing Counsel submitted that the Division Bench decision in the case of M/s Pioneer Tanneries & Glue Works, Jajmau, Kumar and another Vs. State of U.P. and another (Supra) has been over ruled by the Apex Court in the case of Hotel Balaji and others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others, reported in 1993 UPTC, 318 and section 3-AAAA of the Act has been reintroduced w.e.f. 01.04.1974 by Act No.8 of 1992 and thus, there was a mistake apparent on the face of record and was liable to be rectified under section 22 of the Act. He submitted that the Tribunal has erred in rejecting the application under section 22 of the Act. In support of his contention he relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of M/s Hindustan Bone Mills Private Ltd., Moradabad Vs. CTT, reported in 2005 UPTC, 886. I find substance in the argument of learned Standing Counsel. In the case of Karam Chand Thapar & Bros. Vs. State of U.P. and another, reported in 1976 UPTC, 671, Apex Court held that the order is rectifiable under section 22 of the Act on the basis of subsequent decision of the High Courts. In the case of CST Vs. S/s Prakash Chandra Narendra Kumar, Meerut, reported in 2003 UPTC, 843 it has been held by this Court that on the basis of the amended provision with retrospective effect, order can be rectified under section 22 of the Act. Similar view has been taken in the case of M/s Hindustan Bone Mills Private Ltd., Moradabad Vs. CTT (Supra). In this view of the matter, order of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside. Tribunal is directed to rectify its earlier order dated 12.10.1991 for the assessment year 1983-84 under section 22 of the Act on the basis of the amended provision and the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Hotel Balaji and others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others (Supra).

In the result, revision is allowed. Tribunal is directed to rectify its earlier order dated 12.10.1991 for the assessment year 1983-84 under section 22 of the Act on the basis of the amended provision and the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Hotel Balaji and others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others (Supra).

Dt.02.12.2005

R./


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.