Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

NANHE versus THE COMMISSIONER, TRADE TAX, U.P. LUCKNOW

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Nanhe v. The Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P. Lucknow - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 260 of 2005 [2005] RD-AH 908 (30 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.260 OF 2005

Nanhe S/O Sri Badal, Allahabad.              ....Applicant

Versus

The Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P., Lucknow.                ...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 02.09.2004 relating to the assessment year 1993-94.

Applicant has been assessed to tax under section 7 (3) of the Act. Assessing authority passed an ex-parte order on 30.03.1997. Applicant filed application under section 30 of the Act after obtaining certified copy of the order on 28.8.2003. Said application was rejected as barred by limitation. It has been held that the assessment order had already been served on the applicant on 10.01.1999. First appeal filed by the applicant was rejected. Applicant filed second appeal before the Tribunal, which has been rejected. Applicant had denied his signature on the acknowledgement slip. This aspect of the matter has been adjudicated in detail by the Tribunal and the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the signature in the acknowledgement slip was of the applicant. Tribunal further held that Mukhtar Ahmad and Nanhe Ahmad are one and the same person. Finding of the Tribunal is finding of fact. There is no reason to interfere with the findings recorded by the Tribunal. There is no merit in the revision.

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

Dt.30.03.2005

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.