Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

THE COMMISSIONER, TRADE TAX, U.P. LUCKNOW versus S/S MUDRA SIRAMIX (P) LTD.

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 Mudra Siramix (P) Ltd. - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 831 of 1997 [2005] RD-AH 899 (29 March 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.831 of 1997

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

Versus

S/S Mudra Siramix (P) Ltd, Ghaziabad.        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 1st March, 1997  relating to the assessment year 1992-1993 under the Central Sales Tax Act.

During the year under consideration, dealer/opposite party (hereinafter referred to as "Dealer") has claimed export sales for Rs.11.18.415.50 p made to M/S Shivam Exports, 1519, Chandrawal Road, Sabji Mandi, Ghantaghar, Delhi under section 5 (3) of the Central Sales Tax Act and claimed exemption therein. In support of his claim, three Bills of lading and AR-4-A forms issued by the Excise Officer were also filed to establish that the goods had gone outside the Country. However, the assessing authority has not accepted the plea of the dealer and levied the tax. First appellate authority has also not accepted the claim of the dealer. Tribunal allowed the appeal and accepted the claim of the dealer. Tribunal observed that Form AR-4-A was produced before it in which Custom Officer has certified that the impugned goods have been exported outside the Country. Tribunal further observed that the Australian Company had given export order to M/S Shivam Exports, Delhi and in pursuance thereof, Delhi Party had given order to the dealer to supply the goods and after obtaining the permission from the Excise Department, security bond in the name of President of India was also furnished and amount has been deposited. Tribunal on these materials came to the conclusion that the goods have been purchased by M/S Shivam Exports from the dealer in pursuance of the order of the Australia party and the goods had gone outside the Country. Tribunal however, held that merely because the Form-H could not be produced, the claim of export under section 5 (3) of the Act cannot be denied.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the order of the Tribunal and the authorities below, I do not find any error in the order of the Tribunal. Finding of the Tribunal are based on the material on record  and are  findings of fact which does not require any interference.

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

Dated.29.03.2005.

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.