Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

THE COMMISSIONER TRADE TAX UP LKO. versus S/S MOHAMMAD IKRAM KHAN & SONS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


The Commissioner Trade Tax Up Lko. v. S/S Mohammad Ikram Khan & Sons - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 119 of 1999 [2005] RD-AH 7906 (20 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.119 OF 1999

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

Versus

S/S Mohammad Ikram Khan & Sons, Varanasi. ....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 14.10.1997 for the assessment year 1991-92, by which Tribunal has confirmed the order passed by the first appellate authority deleting the penalty under section 15-A (1) (o) of the Act.

Dealer opposite party (hereinafter referred to as "Dealer") was carrying on the business of car. It had a branch office at Chandigarh and also sale office at Varuna Pul, Varanasi. It appears that M/s T.C.I. Private Limited, Bombay paid a sum of Rs.3,58,494/- to the Chandigarh branch of the dealer for the purchase of 2 ambassador cars. Once vehicle was sold against bill no.10 dated 19.09.1992 for Rs.1,79,247/- issued in favour of T.C.I. Private Limited, Bombay. The said vehicle was given to Shri Ramlakhan, driver for the transportation of the vehicle to Varanasi. It was claimed that the said vehicle was purchased for the purpose of Varanasi branch office of T.C.I. Private Limited, Bombay. When the vehicle was coming inside the State of U.P. on 20.09.1991 in the absence of any bill, Form 31 and 32, Trade Tax Officer Check Post, Sarsava seized the vehicle. Vehicle was subsequently released on furnishing of security. It appears, that at the time of seizure of the vehicle, it was told by Shri Ramlakhan, driver that the vehicle had to go to M/s Mohammad Ikram Khan & Sons, Varanasi. In pursuance of the seizure of the vehicle penalty under section 15-A (1) (o) of the Act was levied. Dealer appeared before the assessing authority and submitted that the vehicle was purchased by T.C.I. Private Limited, Bombay against invoice no.10 dated 19.09.1992 from its branch office at Chandigarh. The vehicle was meant for Varanasi office of T.C.I. Private Limited, Bombay, therefore, it was being transported to Varanasi. It was also submitted that being authorized dealer of ambassador car, delivery of the vehicle had to be given to T.C.I. Private Limited after its PDI (Post Delivery Inspection). It was also submitted that after the delivery of the vehicle the same was registered in the name of T.C.I. Private Limited with the registration no.UP-65/C-3670. The vehicle was also insured with National Insurance Company Limited in the name of T.C.I. Private Limited.  Before the assessing authority copy of the bill, certificate of Manager of T.C.I. Private Limited, Bombay, copy of the registration certificate, insurance certificate etc. were filed. Assessing authority however, levied the penalty on the ground that the vehicle was being transported without Form 31 and 32 and invoice and the driver of the vehicle stated that it had to be delivered to the dealer at Varanasi. Assessing authority treated the dealer as importer of the vehicle.  Dealer filed appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Varanasi which was allowed vide order dated 24.10.1992. Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) held that the vehicle was purchased by T.C.I. Private Limited, Bombay from its branch office at Chandigarh against bill no.10 dated 19.09.1992 and it was registered in the name of T.C.I. Private Limited  with registration no.UP-65/C-3670 and was also insured with National Insurance Company Limited. On these facts, it was held that dealer was not the importer of the vehicle and thus, the penalty levied against the dealer was not justified. Commissioner of Trade Tax filed appeal before the Tribunal, which has been dismissed.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Learned Standing Counsel submitted that before the check post officer driver, Shri Ramlakhan stated that vehicle was to be delivered to the Dealer at Varanasi branch and alongwith the vehicle  there was no form 31 and 32 and bill. Thus, the assessing authority had rightly treated the dealer as importer of the vehicle and for the violation of provisions of section 28-A of the Act, penalty had rightly been levied under section 15-A (1) (o) of the Act. Learned counsel for the dealer submitted that the vehicle was sold by Chandigarh branch of the dealer to T.C.I. Private Limited, Bombay against invoice no.10 dated 19.09.1992. The vehicle was coming to the State of U.P. for delivery to T.C.I. Private Limited at their Varnasi branch, which after arrival at Varanasi was registered under the Motor Vehicle Act with registration no.UP-65/C-3670 and was also insured with National Insurance Company Limited. On these facts, it has been submitted that the dealer was not the importer of the vehicle and the provisions of section 28-A of the Act was not applicable to it.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the order of the Tribunal and the authorities below.

I do not find any error in the order of Tribunal. Plying of the vehicle on the road is governed under the Motor Vehicles Act. No vehicle can be plied without the registration under the Motor Vehicles Act. Registration under the Motor Vehicles Act is done on the basis of sale note. Unless sale note is issued vehicle can not be registered under the Motor Vehicles Act. Each vehicle bears engine no. and chasses no. Vehicle is exciseable commodity under the Central Excise Act. In the circumstances, there is least scope of non-disclosure of turn over and evasion of tax in case of motor vehicle. When the document established that the alleged vehicle was sold by the dealer Chandigarh branch to T.C.I. Private Limited, Bombay against invoice no.10 dated 19.09.1992 and the vehicle was coming for delivery to T.C.I. Private Limited, Varanasi branch, subsequently it was permanently registered with registration no.UP-65/C-3670 and was also insured by National Insurance Company Limited in the name of T.C.I. Private Limited, there was no reason to infer that the dealer was the importer. Vehicle was directly sold by Chandigarh office of the dealer to T.C.I. Private Limited, Bombay and T.C.I. Private Limited, Bombay was the real purchaser and  owner of the vehicle. For the aforesaid reasons, revision is devoid of any merit.

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

Dt.20.12.2005

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.