Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

THE COMMISSIONER, TRADE TAX versus S/S ASHEESH TRADERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


The Commissioner, Trade Tax v. S/S Asheesh Traders - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 576 of 1999 [2005] RD-AH 7128 (7 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.576 OF 1999

AND

TRADE TAX REVISION NO.577 OF 1999

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

Versus

S/S Asheesh Traders, Jhansi.   ....Opp. Party

***************

Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.

By the impugned order, Tribunal has deleted the penalty levied under section 13-A (4) of U.P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as "Act"). It appears that the vehicle loaded with the goods  were intercepted by the Trade Tax authorities. At the time of inspection bill was available.  In pursuance of the notice, dealer appeared before the officer concerned and produced the bill book, stock register and satti bahi and the entries of the bill was shown in the books of account. On the verification of the entries, it appears that the Trade Tax Officer had not seized the goods. However, it sent the information to the check post officer about the aforesaid transactions and in pursuance thereof notice under section 13-A (3) of the Act was issued and penalty under section 13-A (4) of the Act was levied. First appeals filed by the dealer were allowed in part. Dealer filed second appeals before the Tribunal, which were allowed  and penalty orders were set aside. Tribunal held that the goods were found entered in the books of account.

Heard learned Standing Counsel.

I do not find any error in the order of Tribunal. Finding of the Tribunal is finding of fact. No question of law is involved in both the revisions.

In the result, both the revisions fail and are accordingly, dismissed.

Dt.07.12.2005

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.