High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
M/S Vishwanath Shiv Kumar v. The Commissioner Of Trade Tax Lko - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 102 of 1998  RD-AH 700 (10 March 2005)
TRADE TAX REVISION NO.102 of 1998
M/S Vishwa Nath Shiv Kumar, Muzaffarnagar. Applicant
Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P. Lucknow. 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 22nd April, 1998 relating to the assessment year, 1986-87.
Before the assessing authority, applicant claimed that the gur for Rs.18,26,406.23 p was purchased on behalf of Ex-U.P. Principal and they were despatched at their destination. Assessing authority has not accepted the plea of the applicant and has levied tax on the purchases. Assessing authority, had also drawn an adverse inference from information received from Trade Tax Officer (SIB), Muzaffarnagar and the matter has been remanded back to the assessing officer in which it appears that the direction was issued to the assessing officer to assess on the value of the seven wagons. In the remand proceeding, the applicant has come forward with the case that certain information tallied with the entries recorded in the books of account. Assessing authority accepted the plea and, levied the tax only on the purchases of Rs. 1,70,203/- which could not tally with the entry from the books of account. The claim of the purchases made on behalf of Ex-U.P. Principal has also been denied by the assessing authority on the ground that the details of the purchases could not be furnished. First appeal filed by the applicant was rejected. Second appeal filed by the applicant was allowed in part.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the Tribunal and authorities below have wrongly rejected the claim of purchases in the course of inter-State on behalf of Ex.U.P. Principal for which necessary details have been furnished.
I do not find any substances in the argument of learned counsel for the applicant. Applicant is not able to show, the date of the order, date on which the goods were purchased in pursuance of the said order, and the date on which the goods were despatched. Tribunal as well as first appellate authority recorded categorical findings that such details have not been furnished. Admittedly, order of the ex-U.P. Principal was not available. It was the case of the applicant that the goods were purchased on the basis of the order given on telephone, therefore, by the conduct and entries in the books only it could be proved that the goods were purchased on behalf of Ex-U.P. Principal and the same were despatched at the destination of the Ex-U.P. Principal. Tribunal observed that date of the order alleged to have been received on telephone, date of purchase and the date on which goods have been despatched have not been furnished. In the absence of such details, claim of purchases of goods on behalf of Ex-U.P. Principal in the course of inter-State purchases has rightly been rejected.
In the result, revision fails and is accordingly, dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.