Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

COMMISSIONER TRADE TAX, U.P. LUCKNOW versus S/S SITA RAM DASS AND OIL MILL JALAUN

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Commissioner Trade Tax, U.P. Lucknow v. S/S Sita Ram Dass And Oil Mill Jalaun - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION DEFECTIVE No. 242 of 1999 [2005] RD-AH 6967 (6 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.(242) OF 1999

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

Versus

S/S Sita Ram Dall and Oil Mill, Jalaun. ....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 04.12.1998 for the assessment year 1987-88.

During the year under consideration, dealer opposite party (hereinafter referred to as "Dealer") purchased food grain and oil seed from M/s Hanuman Stores, Jalaun.  M/s Hanuman Stores, Jalaun had issued Form 3-C (2) to the present dealer. During the course of the assessment proceeding dealer claimed exemption on the purchases made from H/s Hanuman Stores, Jalaun on the basis of Form 3-C (2). Assessing authority issued the show cause notice that the benefit of Form 3-C (2) could not be allowed  because the said forms had been declared invalid by the Headquarter vide circular no.1873 dated 13.01.1992.  In reply to the show cause notice, it was stated the purchases were made against 9 R and bills and on the said purchases M/s Hanuman Stores, Jalaun had paid the tax, which could be verified from Trade Tax Officer, Sector-2, Orai. Assessing authority without disputing the explanation of the dealer refused to allow the benefit against the said declaration Form 3-C (2) on the ground that they had been cancelled and the dealer should have obtained fresh forms from the seller. First appeal filed by the dealer was rejected. Tribunal, however, allowed the appeal and allowed the benefit of exemption against said Form 3-C (2).

Heard learned Standing Counsel.

I do not find any error in the order of Tribunal. Assessment year involved is 1987-88. When the dealer had made the purchases and received Form 3-C (2) from M/s Hanuman Stores, Jalaun, it was valid form. Thus, on the basis of the circular of the Headquarter dated 13.01.1992 cancelling the said Form 3-C (2), benefit of the exemption can not be denied to the dealer, who had received the forms bonafidely. The dealer can not be put to suffer for no fault on its part. Cancellation of any form can be only with prospective effect and not with retrospective effect. Thus, the Tribunal has rightly allowed the exemption against Form 3-C (2) in which no error or discrepancy was found.

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

Dt.06.12.2005

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.