Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

THE COMMISSIONER, TRADE TAX, U.P. LUCKNOW versus PATNI CHEMICALS PVT. LTD. PATNAI SHAHARANPUR

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


The Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P. Lucknow v. Patni Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Patnai Shaharanpur - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION DEFECTIVE No. 170 of 1999 [2005] RD-AH 6942 (5 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.(170) OF 1999

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

Versus

S/S Patni Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Saharanpur. .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 31.03.1998 relating to the assessment year1995-96.

Dealer/opposite party (hereinafter referred to as "Dealer")  was carrying on the business of manufacture and sale of calcium carbonate. Applicant had maintained regular books of account in the form of Rokar Khara, purchase voucher, sale bill, RG-I register, stock register etc. RG-I register was maintained as required under Central Excise Act duly verified by the authorities. Assessing authority had rejected the books of account on the basis of certain documents found at the time of survey dated 31.03.1996 and estimated the turn over by way of best judgment assessment. First appeal filed by the dealer was allowed in part. Dealer further filed second appeal before the Tribunal, which has been  allowed and the books of account and disclosed turn over have been accepted.

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

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

First appellate authority  has accepted the explanation of the dealer with regard to the various loose parchas found at the time of survey but the rejection of books of account has been upheld on the ground of difference in the stock found at the time of survey and as per books of account. Tribunal held that both the assessing authority as well as first appellate authority have only observed that there was difference in the stock found at the time of survey and as per books of account and the less stock was found, but no details of less stock have been given. Tribunal further held that in various cases this Court has held that if the less stock was found, than the stock as per books of account, no adverse inference can be drawn. On the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order of Tribunal. Revision is devoid of merit.

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

Dt.05.12.2005

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.