Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

THE COMMISSIONER,TRADE TAX,U.P.LUCKNOW versus S/S NIDHI GLASS INDUSTRIES LABOUR COLONY FIROZABAD

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 Nidhi Glass Industries Labour Colony Firozabad - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION DEFECTIVE No. 567 of 1999 [2005] RD-AH 7295 (9 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.(567) of 1999.

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

Versus

S/S Nidhi Glass Industries, Firozabad.  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 2nd January 1999 relating to the assessment year 1991-92.

The dealer opposite party (hereinafter referred to as "the dealer") was engaged in the manufacturing of glassware and laboratory ware. Laboratory ware was exempted from tax. Dealer was holding a recognition certificate for the manufacturing of glassware and was entitled to purchase raw material at a concessional rate of tax for use in the manufacturing of glassware. Assessing authority levied the penalty under section 4-B of the Act on the ground that the raw materials purchased were used in the manufacturing of laboratory ware and packing material. First appeal filed by the dealer was allowed and the penalty levied under section 4-B (5) of the Act was deleted. Commissioner of Trade Tax filed appeal before the Tribunal. Tribunal by the impugned order allowed the appeal of the Commissioner of Trade Tax in part. Tribunal held that the dealer had used some of the raw materials in the manufacturing of packing material for which it is liable for penalty under section 4-B (5) of the Act. Tribunal however, affirmed the order of the first appellate authority that the goods in stock have been used in the manufacturing of laboratory ware and upheld the deletion of penalty in this regard.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Learned Standing Counsel is not able to show any error in the order of the Tribunal which is based on the material on record. I do not find any error in the order of the Tribunal.

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

Dated.09.12.2005.

VS.


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.