Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

THE COMMISSIONER TRADE TAX,U.P.LUCKNOW versus ROADWAYS INDIA SARDARNAGAR

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


The Commissioner Trade Tax,U.P.Lucknow v. Roadways India Sardarnagar - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 227 of 1997 [2005] RD-AH 76 (5 January 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. 227 of 1997.

Commissioner of Trade Tax, U. P. ... Revisionist.

Vs.

S/S Roadways India, Gorakhpur. .... Respondent.

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 17.10.1996 for the assessment year 1989-90.

It appears that the opp. party entered into a contract with M/S Saraiya Distillery, Gorakhpur for transportation of goods and received transportation charges at Rs.76,47,921/-.  Opp.Party had sold two old Trucks during the year under consideration.  Assessing Authority levied tax on the receipt of transportation charges under Section 3-F and also levied tax on the sale of Trucks.  Tribunal has deleted the aforesaid levy by the impugned order.

Heard Learned Standing Counsel.  Inspite of service of notice, opp.party is not represented.

I have perused the order of Tribunal.  Tribunal held that the contract was for transportation of goods from one place to another place and all the expenses namely Petrol, Diesel expenses, Employee expenses etc. borne by the opp. party and the possession of Vehicle was always with the opp.party ealer which had never been transferred to M/S Saraiya Distillery, Gorakhpur and therefore, provisions of Section 3-F was not applicable.  Tribunal further held that two Trucks sold during the year under consideration were U. P. purchases and therefore, not liable to tax.  Learned Standing Counsel is not able to assail the finding recorded by the Tribunal which are findings of fact.  I do not find any reason to interfere with the finding recorded by the Tribunal. Under the agreement, dealer had only transported the goods from one place to another place and the possession of Vehicle had never been transferred to M/S Saraiya Distillery, Gorakhpur for use and the possession of Vehicle always remain with the dealer and necessary expenses have also been borne by the dealer and therefore, there was no  transfer of right to use Vehicle and levy of tax under Section 3-F was not justified.

In the result, revision fails and is accordingly dismissed.

Dt:05.1.05.MZ/-


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.